HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8-a - Minutes 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 3, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
November 8, 2018 BOCC Work Session
November 13, 2018 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
I Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT
4 MINUTES
5 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 November 8, 2018
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, November
10 8, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board
17 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
20
21 1. Presentation on Racial Equity Assessment of Manufactured Housing
22
23 BACKGROUND:
24 A student team from Dr. Allison De Marco's economic justice course in the UNC School of
25 Social Work worked with Commissioner Mia Burroughs, the Board's representative to the
26 Leadership Team of the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness (OCPEH), on a
27 racial equity assessment of manufactured housing (mobile homes), which have been an option
28 for affordable housing in Orange County. Using a racial equity toolkit, the team interviewed key
29 stakeholders and developed two proposals:
30
31 1) The Towns and Counties could partner to purchase the land of mobile home
32 communities at risk for displacement.
33 2) Relocation of residents of Chapel Hill and Carrboro mobile home parks to other
34 predesignated, town-owned parcels of land.
35
36 Both of proposals include measures for ensuring accountability, including conducting follow-up
37 surveys with the Orange County Health Department and the Family Success Alliance
38 throughout the implementation process as well as after the process.
39
40 Orange County Mobile Home Parks: Proposals from a Racial Equity Lens
41 Shodeah Kelly, Julia Corbett, Ariella Hirsch, Lucas Risinger and Serena Singh
42
43 Executive Summary
44 Orange County, in cooperation with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, seeks a proposal
45 for how to use funds allocated to assist residents of mobile home parks at risk of being
46 displaced by development. We outlined two proposals for the use of these funds and analyze
47 both using a racial equity lens.
48
49 The Orange County Health Department and Family Success Alliance conducted a survey of
50 eight mobile home parks in the area and we largely rely on these data in our proposals; in the
2
1 survey results, it is clear that the residents of the mobile home parks strongly preferred
2 remaining in their homes and communities.
3
4 To address these strong preferences, our first proposal indicates that the Towns and Counties
5 should partner to purchase the land of mobile home communities at risk for displacement. This
6 proposal increases racial equity by ensuring that the majority Hispanic population of these
7 parks will be able to remain in their homes and on current land, thereby maintaining access to
8 services, transportation, and schools, which surveyed individuals cited as important reasons for
9 remaining in their current locations. This proposal would substantially benefit the residents of
10 mobile home parks facing displacement.
11
12 However, this proposal would also place a significant financial burden on the Towns and
13 Counties tasked with purchasing the land.
14
15 Our second proposal recommends the relocation of residents of Chapel Hill and Carrboro
16 mobile home parks to other pre-designated, town-owned parcels of land. This proposal is less
17 preferred under a racial equity lens given that it would force the relocation of marginalized and
18 vulnerable populations. Although this proposal places a burden on the residents, it takes into
19 account their preferences. The pre-designated parcels of land would ensure that residents
20 remain within Chapel Hill and Carrboro, ensuring that their children remain in the city school
21 district. Further, remaining within the towns would help alleviate concerns over access to transit
22 and other services. This proposal would also place a significant burden on the Towns and
23 County in that it would be costly to build the infrastructure for new mobile home parks and to
24 move residents and their trailers.
25
26 Both of their proposals include measures for ensuring accountability including conducting
27 follow-up surveys with the Orange County Health Department and the Family Success Alliance
28 throughout the implementation process as well as after the process.
29
30 Dr. Allison DeMarco and UNC Students — Shodeah Kelly, Julia Corbett, Ariella Hirsch,
31 Lucas Risinger and Serena Singh (Current CEF Advocates) — made the following PowerPoint
32 presentation:
33
34 Orange County: Mobile Home Parks and Racial Equity
35 Shodeah Kelly, Julia Corbett, Ariella Hirsch, Lucas Risinger, Serena Singh
36
37 Step 1: What is your proposal and the desired results and outcomes?
38 • Mobile home parks are overwhelmingly made up of people of color, meaning that any
39 adverse effects disproportionately harm communities of color.
40 o A racially equitable policy is one that respects the wishes of these communities,
41 minimizes harm, and does not disproportionately harm people of color.
42 • We seek to propose two sustainable outcomes that balance the desires of these
43 marginalized communities with the financial realities of the County.
44
45 Step 2: What is the data?
46 • The burden of instability and uncertainty falls on the residents of these mobile home
47 parks, who are all low-income, majority-Hispanic, and often undocumented
48 themselves or live with undocumented family members.
49 • Residents who are undocumented or live in mixed-status homes are particularly
50 vulnerable, as they often cite avoidance of public services for fear of deportation, and
3
1 thus are likely particularly reliant on location-specific support networks and their
2 communities.
3 o Proximity to family and friends was a major concern cited by residents regarding
4 relocation.
5 • Communities in these mobile home parks have expressed that they would like to remain
6 in their homes and communities.
7 o There has been an emphasis placed on the importance of remaining within the
8 Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district.
9 • Lack of action could result in many of these residents to become homeless as many do
10 not have alternative options for housing.
11
12 Step 3: How are communities engaged?
13 Orange County Health Department and the Family Success Alliance surveyed several mobile
14 home parks.
15 • The engagement process informs us:
16 1) that multiple facets of residents' identities inform their decisions and
17 preferences, most notably race, class, and documentation status.
18 2) that not everyone in these mobile home parks has the opportunity to advocate
19 themselves, as they are in vulnerable situations, often living in fear of deportation
20 and separation from family members.
21
22 Step 4: What are your strategies for advancing racial equity?
23 The County should work actively to incorporate a racial-equity sense in all the work they do.
24 This includes:
25 1) facilitating conversations on poverty, race, affordable housing, or documentation-status.
26 o These conversations should include and empower marginalized voices. By
27 partnering with community organizations like the Community Empowerment
28 Fund and the Family Success Alliance, the County can create effective spaces
29 for these conversations.
30 2) systematically surveying and documenting the responses of these individuals.
31 o Listening and responding to the voices of marginalized populations in creating
32 and executing our proposal advances racial equity.
33 3) acknowledging that the needs of the community are subject to change and evolve as our
34 proposal begins to affect communities.
35
36 Step 5: Desired Outcomes, Proposals
37 Our desired outcome is one in which the wishes of community members are respected and
38 racially disproportionate harm is minimized.
39
40 Plan 1: Purchase Land
41 Costs: Principal purchase price and lost values of property taxes, while there would be income
42 flowing in from rent payments.
43
44 Benefits: While this is likely the most expensive option, it certainly minimizes the inflicted racial
45 inequity. Families would not have to relocate, nor would they have to fear future relocation;
46 furthermore, the desires of the community to remain in their current location would be
47 respected.
48
49 Plan 2: Relocated (Less Ideal)
4
1 Costs: Pay to relocate the residents (and their homes) to a plot of land owned by the County
2 within the preferred school system. The major expenses would be the physical relocation of the
3 mobile home park, as well as the establishment of proper sewage and electrical systems
4
5 Benefits: The additional financial burdens of this plan are likely smaller than the first, as the
6 land would already be owned by the town, and the regular maintenance would likely remain
7 constant or decrease. Residents will still have access to public transportation and live within the
8 preferred school district.
9
10 Unintended Consequences
11 Plan 1:
12 The aforementioned discretionary spending reserved for the mobile home parks may be
13 enough to fund either plan, but it is possible that more funding may be necessary to purchase
14 the currently occupied land. This can be allocated from existing county discretionary spending
15 or raised through taxes.
16
17 Plan 2:
18 The second plan would require additional personnel. Personnel would be needed to help
19 relocate the families, receive and implement community input, address unintended
20 consequences and damage to property, and survey the community after the move.
21
22 Step 6: How to ensure communication, accountability, and evaluate results?
23 It will be important to conduct a follow up survey, an effective way to gauge the effects
24 of our proposal.
25 o In our follow-up survey, we can repeat questions from the initial survey to
26 measure how responses have changed as well as ask new questions regarding
27 the implementation and outcomes of our proposal.
28 o In conducting a follow-up survey it would be important to not only reach the
29 families that participated in the initial survey to see where they ended up, but
30 also to reach other community members who may have initially declined
31 participation to hear their input.
32
33 D. (1/29/18). Emotional Pleas at Chapel Hill Meeting Over Possible Redevelopment of Mobile
34 Home Park. Chapelboro.Com. Retrieved from
35 https://chapelboro.com/news/development/emotional-pleas-at-chapel-hill-meeting-over-
36 possible-redevelopment-of-mobile-home-park
37 Orange County Health Department and Family Success Alliance. (9/15/17). Mobile Home Park
38 Survey: Preliminary Report. Retrieved from
39 https://www.townofchapelhill.org/home/showdocument?id=38240
40 (8/28/18). Work Continues on Threats of Displacement to Mobile Home Dwellers. Orange
41 Politics.
42 Retrieved from
43 http://orangepolitics.org/2018/08/work-continues-threats-displacement-mobile home-
44 dwellers
45
46 Commissioner Rich asked the students if anyone in their class lived in mobile home
47 parks.
48 Lucas Risinger said not that he knows of, but he grew up in Chapel Hill, and had grade
49 school classmates who lived in them.
5
1 Commissioner Rich asked if there was a method for finding, and communicating with,
2 mobile home park residents.
3 Shodeah Kelly said she has lived in a mobile home. She said the students solely relied
4 on survey data, acknowledging that there are gaps in the data and it refreshed data is needed
5 to see if any participants that did not get to be part of the survey would like to be a part of it.
6 She said they hoped that the survey would be real, and she personally tried to weave personal
7 experiences into this project, without being subjective.
8 Commissioner McKee asked if the sample size could be identified.
9 Female student said the survey was done in 2017 in mobile home parks in Orange
10 County and the towns. She said the students would recommend that the next survey use more
11 community partners to reach out to organizations that may work with these residents.
12 Commissioner McKee said the two local school districts are on par with each other, and
13 noted that people across the country move all the time, changing schools as they go. He asked
14 if there is a reason why the students consider changing school systems to be so oppressive.
15 He said buying land in Chapel Hill is radically different than buying land in Orange County.
16 Female student said the students understand the cost factor, but there is a widely held
17 belief that the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) is a better school system, with better
18 funding. She said there are other benefits to living in Chapel Hill such as public transportation
19 and community partners.
20 Female student said about 96 surveys were completed and returned.
21 Commissioner McKee said he understood the perception that the CHCCS is the primary
22 school system, but he went to Orange County Schools (OCS) and he challenges the perception
23 that CHCCS is a better system.
24 Female student said people do move for all types of reasons, and in this particular case,
25 it is more to do with the nature of how and why people are being moved. She said these
26 residents want to remain in Chapel Hill, but will not be able to, which makes it racially
27 inequitable.
28 Shodeah Kelly said she moved 9 different times, and moving each time requires forming
29 new friendships, and relationships, different curriculums that left gaps in her knowledge, and as
30 a minority she was not given an opportunity to advocate for herself. She said it leads to a
31 fragmented foundation on which to build educational pursuits.
32 Commissioner McKee said he agrees and understands the stress, but he wants to
33 prevent the quest for perfection from getting in the way of the possible.
34 Chair Dorosin said this is a critical issue for the community. He said this is Orange
35 County's gentrification, and low wealth residents are being displaced. He said finding other
36 options is critical.
37 Commissioner Price said she attended a seminar today that focused on housing and
38 real estate trends, and one of the recommendations was to purchase land/land trust to help
39 keep housing affordable.
40 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Allison De Marco have someone from OCS come
41 and speak to her class. He said moving is not such an onerous thing, and the County could
42 help more people for less money.
43 Commissioner Burroughs thanked the students for coming tonight, and said it is not so
44 much that it is hard to move, but for folks who are already economically distressed it can be a
45 greater hardship. She said it is not so much about the schools, but about the people.
46 Lucas Risinger said that the residents advocated staying in their community, and it is
47 important to treat minorities the same way as a white community.
48 Female Student said she does not claim to know all of the costs of moving, but it is easy
49 to assume that costs would be larger because of the barriers these residents already face
6
1 (gaining employment, being undocumented, etc.). She thanked the Board of County
2 Commissioners (BOCC) for being willing to engage in this conversation.
3
4 2. Proposed Guidelines for the New Orange County Local Rent Supplement Program
5 (OC-LRSP)
6 Sherrill Hampton, Housing Director, introduced Javon Holley, Program Manager for the
7 new Housing Choice Voucher Program.
8
9 BACKGROUND:
10 The Orange County Board of County Commissioners, on June 19, 2018, approved an initial
11 $100,000 appropriation for a new local voucher program known as the Orange County Local
12 Rent Supplement Program. In addition, the HOME Consortium, now known as the Local
13 Government Affordable Housing Collaborative and consisting of the towns of Carrboro, Chapel
14 Hill, and Hillsborough, as well as Orange County, approved a recommendation to award
15 $139,613 in FY 2018-19 HOME funds to be used for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. Of the
16 aforementioned amount, $114,613 would serve as leveraged resources for the new OC Local
17 Rent Supplement Program. The remaining amount of$25,000 will be used for the Rapid Re-
18 Housing Program. The federal Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) approved
19 the FY 2018-2019 HOME grant award on October 3, 2018, and the grant agreement was fully
20 executed on October 10, 2018 by the County Manager.
21
22 The new OC Local Rent Supplement Program (OC-LRSP) in many aspects mirrors the
23 federally-funded Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. However, it is also designed to allow
24 for flexibility in meeting local identified housing needs. For the full program overview and
25 proposed guidelines of the new OC-LRSP, see Attachment 1. In addition, a draft
26 implementation timeline and a copy of HUD's FY 2019 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are also
27 included as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. The listed rents serve as the payment standards
28 for the rental subsidies offered under the new program. It should be noted that there has been
29 an increase in the FMRs in FY 2019 as opposed to those originally
30
31 Sherrill Hampton thanked the BOCC for supporting this program, and said it will be
32 another tool in the housing toolbox. She reviewed the following PowerPoint presentation:
33
34 PART I: OVERVIEW OF THE NEW ORANGE COUNTY LOCAL RENT SUPPLEMENT
35 PROGRAM (OC-LRSP)
36 A. OVERVIEW
37 The Local Rent Supplement Program is a new rental subsidy program approved by the Orange
38 County Board of County Commissioners on June 19, 2018 with an initial injection of capital in
39 the amount of$100,000. The County's HOME Consortium, the Local Government Affordable
40 Housing Collaborative, is providing $114, 613 in FY 2018-2019 HOME funds for tenant-based
41 rental assistance as leveraged funds to assist in the implementation of the OC-LRSP. The
42 County will enter into an agreement with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) to
43 administer the new program.
44
45 The OC-LRSP provides monthly rental subsidies that cover the difference between the rents
46 that low-income families and individuals can afford to pay and the actual monthly cost of rent for
47 the unit. The new program addresses one of the priority housing needs identified in Orange
48 County's FY 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, as well as the recently released Affordable Housing
49 Coalition's 2018 Affordable Housing Summit Report.
50
7
1 The new program is designed to complement the federally-funded Housing Choice Voucher
2 (HCV) Program, which is administered by OCHA and will assist families and individuals who
3 earn 50% or less of the Area median Income with priority going to those who are very low
4 income (30% of AMI or less). The program promotes community-wide planning and strategic
5 use of resources to address the jurisdiction's unmet needs and to narrow the gap in benefits
6 and services received by cost-burdened families.
7
8 For the most part, and unless otherwise specified, OC-LRSP will follow the rules and
9 regulations of the HCV Program. However, some of the differences between OC-LRSP and
10 HCV Program are that OC-LRSP's rental subsidies are not for housing outside a 10-mile radius
11 of the County's jurisdictional boundaries. Therefore the subsidies are not "portable" and are
12 only available to Orange County residents. In addition, the preferences and priorities for the
13 housing assistance are different than those specified in the HCV Program rules and
14 regulations. Furthermore, the rental assistance may be administered as tenant-based and/or
15 project-based. If project-based is utilized then an RFP will be released and proposals solicited
16 from eligible landlords. In the future, OC-LRSP may be amended to include sponsor-based
17 rental assistance as a methodology for incentivizing new affordable housing multi-family
18 development.
19
20 B. PURPOSE
21 The purpose of the OC Local Rent Supplement Program (OC-LRSP) is to provide rental
22 assistance in the form of a monthly rental subsidy to Homeless/At Risk of Homelessness
23 persons and families, Senior/Disabled persons, and Victims of Domestic Violence who are at or
24 below the fifty (50) percent of the Area Median Income limit.
25
26 PART II: PROPOSED PROGRAM GUIDELINES
ELIGIBLE SUBSIDY COSTS The total proposed cost of the Local Housing
program is $203,6201 and the break-out of units with
associated costs are as follows:
0 5 one bedroom units @ $902 per month for
12 months =$54,120
0 5 two bedroom units @$1,055 per month for
12 months = $63,300
0 5 three bedroom units @ $1,435 per month
for 12 months = $86,100
• HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
allocation of$114,613 will support the needed
difference of$103,620 for rental subsidies.
• Of the $114,613 identified above, $10,993 will be
used to cover security and utility deposit payments;
and
• If additional funds are needed to cover security
and utility deposit payments, OCHA will make a
request for Risk Mitigation/Housing
Displacement Funds, as well as for applicable
assistance from other jurisdictions. However,
these funds are often available on a one-time
basis and may not be used for ongoing utility
assistance as is provided under the federally-
8
funded HCV Program, which provides monthly
utility assistance to applicable low and very low
income households.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE The amount of the monthly assistance that OCHA will pay
on behalf of a family, may not exceed the difference
between the rent payment standard for the unit size and
thirty (30) percent of the family's monthly adjusted income.
SECURITY DEPOSITS A limited number of security deposit grants will be provided
to eligible applicants, subject to the availability of funds and
at the sole discretion of the OCHA. Participants must
document, in writing, their efforts to secure security deposit
funding from other sources and demonstrate insufficient
personal funds. The maximum amount of funds that may be
provided for the security deposit is the equivalent of two
months' contracted rent for the unit.
Only the tenant (not the landlord) may apply for security
deposit assistance.
THE TERM OF THE RENTAL The term of the rental assistance contract may not exceed
ASSISTANCE twelve (12) months, but may be renewed, subject to the
availability of annual appropriations from Orange County or
the program, and at the discretion of the OCHA.
FUNDING The OCHA will make annual funding requests to Orange
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES County for the program. In turn, the County will request
HOME TBRA funds, as well as provide Risk
Mitigation/Housing Displacement funds based on the
availability of applicable program funds.
The Orange County Board of County Commissioners will
review and approve all policies, procedures and guidelines,
as well as amendments. The Orange County Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners, serves as the Board of
Directors for the Housing Authority, adopts policies and
procedures annually.
1 The Local Rent Supplement Program adheres to the
2 federally-funded HCV Program model, unless otherwise
3 noted in these Guidelines. If there is a conflict between
4 program regulations and the HCV Administrative Plan,
5 the OC Local Rent Supplement Program regulations
6 have precedence.
7 In addition to evidence of eligibility required under the
8 HCV Program, applicants must meet one of the
9 following requirements to qualify for the Local Rent
10 Subsidy Program:
11 1. Homeless Individuals
9
1 2. Homeless Families, including those who may have
2 children in child protective services
3 3. Person At Risk of Homelessness, including those
4 who may have children in child protective services
5 4. Senior/Elderly and Disabled Individuals
6 5. Victims of Domestic Violence
7
8 And
9 Be at or below the HUD fifty (50) percent AMI limit
10
11 ELIGIBILITY The Orange County Housing Authority requires that
12 households, at time of entry into the program, be at or
13 below fifty (50) percent of the Area Median Income
14 (AMI). Additionally, the OCHA must provide at least fifty
15 percent (50%) of its local vouchers to applicants whose
16 income does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the AMI.
17 HUD income limits may also be used since they are
18 similar to Housing Choice Voucher income limits.
19
20 APPLYING TO THE WAITING LIST Any individual/family who wishes to receive
21 Any individual/family who wishes to receive rental
22 subsidies under the OC Local Rent Supplement
23 Program must apply for admission to the program.
24 The Local Rent Supplement Program has a
25 separate Waiting List and assistance is restricted
26 to persons who are at or below fifty percent (50%)
27 of the AMI. Priority will be given to Homeless
28 Individuals/Families, Persons At Risk of
29 Homelessness, Senior/Elderly Disabled Individuals,
30 and Victims of Domestic Violence
31
32 ACESSIBILITY TO THE APPLICATION PROCESS the Department of Social Services
33 (DSS), Community Centers and
34 various service providers throughout
35 the County. The Application period
36 will run from February 1, 2019 —
37 February 8, 2019. Persons having
38 questions or needing assistance in
39 completing the application may
40 contact the Orange County Housing
41 Authority/Department of Housing
42 and Community Development at
43 (919) 245-2490 or the TDD Number
44 at (919) 644-3045.
45
46 OUTREACH AND MARKETING The new program will be announced on the
47 County's website beginning in mid-January 2019.
48 In addition, OCHA will hold a briefing for applicable
49 area service providers.
50 Full Implementation Timeline:
10
1 • January 14, 2019—Announce new OC-LRSP
2 • January 17, 2019— Hold Briefing for Service
3 Providers
4 • Application Period Opens— February 1, 2019
5 • Application Period Closes — February 8, 2019
6 • Reviewing Applications and Determining
7 Preliminary Eligibility— February 11- March 15,
8 2019 (Screening period may be extended due
9 to the number of applications received.)
10 • Conduct Briefings and Begin Issuance of New
11 Vouchers — March 25—April 30, 2019
12
13 SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT The OCHA requires that any agency making
14 referrals to screen applicants for eligibility based on
15 the guidelines outlined in this document and to
16 submit to the OCHA required documents included
17 in the Local Rent Supplement Program Application
18 Packet.
19 Completed documents will be used by the PHA to:
20 1. Determine applicant's eligibility
21 2. Select participants
22 3. Notify applicants of their obligations as an OC-
23 LRSP recipient
24
25 Completed application and verifications must be
26 current within the last sixty (60) days. Referring
27 agencies and case managers must conduct a
28 thorough screening and assessment of each
29 individual's care needs. The screening will include
30 assessment of the individual's ability to live
31 independently.
32 In addition, the individual must not present a
33 danger to himself or others and the individual must
34 not require a level of care that is not offered by OC
35 Local Rent Supplement Program.
36
37 EVIDENCE OF ELIGIBILITY Homelessness/At Risk Homelessness Certification
38 The Local Rent Supplement Program applicants, who
39 qualify under the definition of Homelessness, must provide
40 the following documentation at the time of application to
41 establish that they meet the required criteria:
42 1. The Local Rent Supplement Program applicant's
43 written certification that they have insufficient
44 financial resources and support networks
45 immediately available to attain housing stability
46 2. Documentation to verify that the Local Rent
47 Supplement Program applicant did not have
48 sufficient resources or support networks
49 immediately available to attain housing stability as
50 evidenced by one of the following:
11
I a. Source documents (e.g., notice of
2 termination from employment, bank
3 statement, health care bill showing arrears);
4 or
5 b. Written statement by referring agency
6 staff confirming that they spoke to a
7 relevant third party to verify homelessness
8 or at risk homelessness status; or
9 c. Written statement by referring agency
10 staff of the efforts taken to obtain
11 verification through source documents and
12 relevant third parties
13 d. Verification that the Local Rent
14 Supplement Program applicant met one of
15 the seven conditions under the definition of
16 Homelessness as evidenced by one of the
17 following:
18 i. Source documents that evidence
19 one or more of the conditions;
20 1. A Homeless/At Risk
21 Homelessness Certification
22 Form completed by a service
23 provider.
24 2. A written statement by a
25 relevant third party or the
26 written certification by
27 referring agency staff of the
28 oral verification by the
29 relevant third party that the
30 applicant meets one or more
31 of the conditions; or
32 3. A written statement by the
33 referring agency staff that
34 the staff person has visited
35 the applicant's residence and
36 determined that the applicant
37 meets one or more of the
38 conditions or, if a visit is not
39 feasible or relevant to the
40 determination, a written
41 statement by the referring
42 agency staff describing the
43 efforts taken to obtain the
44 required evidence.
45
46
47 3. In addition, one or more of the following should
48 be provided:
49 a. A written documentation of observation
50 by an outreach worker;
12
1 b. A written certification by the household
2 seeking assistance that demonstrates that
3 the individual or head of household is
4 currently homeless and living in a place not
5 meant for human habitation, in an
6 emergency shelter, or a safe haven.
7
8
9 Senior/Elderly Disabled Certification A birth certificate or other official record of birth is
10 the preferred form of age verification (must be at
11 least 62 years of age or older). An original
12 document that provides evidence of the receipt of
13 social security retirement benefits is acceptable.
14
15 In order to receive Disabled/Disabling Condition
16 preference, the Local Rent Supplement Program
17 applicants must present evidence of disabling
18 condition diagnosis with one or more of the
19 following conditions: substance use disorder,
20 serious mental illness, developmental disability as
21 defined by the Department of Housing and Urban
22 Development (HUD).
23 A disabling condition is defined by HUD as:
24 1. A physical, mental, or emotional
25 impairment which is expected to be of long-
26 continued and indefinite duration,
27 substantially impedes an individual's ability
28 to live independently, and of such a nature
29 that the disability could be improved by
30 more suitable conditions;
31 2. A developmental disability as defined in
32 section 102 of the Developmental
33 Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights
34 Act;
35 3. The disease of acquired
36 immunodeficiency syndrome or any
37 conditions arising from the etiological
38 agency for acquired immunodeficiency
39 syndrome; or
40 4. A diagnosable substance abuse disorder.
41
42 Evidence of this criterion must include one of the
43 following:
44 a. Written verification of the
45 condition from a professional
46 licensed by the state to diagnose
47 and treat the condition;
48 b. Written verification from the
49 Social Security Administration;
13
1 c. Copies of a disability check (e.g.,
2 Social Security Disability Insurance
3 check or Veterans Disability
4 Compensation); Intake staff (or
5 referral staff) observation that is
6 confirmed by written verification of
7 the condition from a professional
8 licensed by the state to diagnose
9 and treat the condition that is
10 confirmed no later than fourteen (14)
11 days of the application for
12 assistance and accompanied with
13 one of the types of evidence above;
14 or other documentation approved by
15 HUD.
16
17 Victim of Domestic Violence The Local Rent Supplement Program applicants, who
18 qualify under the definition of Victim of Domestic Violence,
19 must provide the following documentation at the time of
20 application to establish that they meet the required criteria:
21 1. The individual may satisfy the PHA's request by
22 providing any one of the following three forms of
23 documentation [24 CFR 5.2007(b)]:
24 a. A completed and signed HUD-approved
25 certification form (HUD-50066,
26 Certification of Domestic Violence, Dating
27 Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking),
28 which must include the name of the
29 perpetrator only if the name of the
30 perpetrator is safe to provide and is known
31 to the victim;
32 b. A federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local
33 police report, or court record, or an
34 administrative record; or
35 c. Documentation signed by a person who
36 has assisted the victim in addressing
37 domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
38 assault, or stalking, or the effects of
39 such abuse. This person may be an
40 employee, agent, or volunteer of a victim
41 service provider; an attorney; a mental
42 health professional; or a medical
43 professional. The person signing the
44 documentation must attest under penalty of
45 perjury to the person's belief that the
46 incidents in question are bona fide
47 incidents of abuse. The victim must also
48 sign the documentation.
49
50 TENANT SELECTION Selection Criteria
14
1 Families will be selected based on the following targeted
2 population selection criteria and selection preference
3 method. Within the preference category, families and
4 individuals will be selected based on severity of needs.
5
6 The OCHA system of preferences may select families
7 either according to the date and time of application, or by a
8 random selection process. When selecting families from
9 the Waiting List OCHA is required to use targeted funding
10 to assist only those families who meet the specified
11 criteria, and OCHA is not permitted to skip down the
12 waiting list to a family that it can afford to subsidize when
13 there are not sufficient funds to subsidize the family at the
14 top of the waiting list.
15
16 Targeted Population:
17 • Homeless Individuals
18 • Homeless Families, including those families who
19 may have children in child protective
20 services
21 • Person At Risk of Homelessness, including
22 families who may have children in child
23 protective services
24 • Senior/Elderly and Disabled Individuals
25 • Victims of Domestic Violence
26 Families and individuals must meet the requirements and
27 eligibility criteria of one of the above targeted population
28 groups to qualify for the Local Rent Supplement Program.
29 Homelessness/At Risk Homelessness
30 For Homelessness and At Risk of Homelessness
31 applicants, severity of needs is identified and verified
32 through the use of Homelessness/At Risk Homelessness
33 Certification Form and submitted source documents.
34 Senior/Disabled applicants and Victims of Domestic
35 Violence
36 For Senior/Disabled applicants and Victims of Domestic
37 Violence applicants, severity of needs is identified and
38 verified through the use of the submitted source
39 documents.
40
41 CRIMINAL BACKGROUND All participants will undergo criminal background and sex
42 offender checks based on the Housing Choice Voucher
43 (HCV) regulations.
44
45 DENIAL OF ASSISTANCE An applicant will be denied participation in the Local Rent
46 Supplement Program if the applicant does not meet Local
47 Rent Supplement Program specific admission criteria.
48
49 Participation will also be denied if the Local Rent
50 Supplement Program applicant does not provide:
15
1 1. Information that the OCHA determines is
2 necessary in the administration of the program
3 2. Complete and true information and it is
4 discovered that the applicant does not meet
5 eligibility requirements
6
7 BRIEFINGS AND VOUCHER ISSUANCE The applicant, together with all adult
8 members of the household and the
9 assigned case manager (if applicable) must
10 be present for the initial briefing and
11 voucher issuance.
12
13 Upon the completion of the initial briefing, a
14 Local Voucher/Rent Subsidy voucher will be
15 issued to the applicant. Local Rent
16 Supplement Program participants have up
17 to 120 days to search for a unit within the
18 Orange County geographic area and submit
19 a Request for Tenancy Approval (RTA) to
20 the OCHA upon finding a suitable unit.
21
22 If an extension is needed, one may be
23 requested. The request will be evaluated
24 and a decision made based upon the same
25 policy outlined in the voucher issuance
26 section of Chapter 5 of the OCHA Housing
27 Choice Voucher Administrative Plan (Proof
28 of Effort must be submitted to the OCHA).
29
30 TENANT RENT PORTION Program participants are required to pay a portion of their
31 rent if they are receiving assistance under OC Local Rent
32 Supplement Program. Participants' rent must be equal to
33 the highest of:
34 • 30 percent of family's monthly adjusted income;
35 • 10 percent of family's monthly gross income; or
36 • A minimum rent of$50 contribution.
37 The PHA has authority to suspend and exempt families
38 from minimum rent when a financial hardship exists.
39
40 HOUSING QUALITY STANDARDS (HQS) HQS unit inspections are required both at
41 initial occupancy and annually thereafter for
42 all Local Rent Supplement subsidized units.
43 Newly leased units must pass the HQS
44 inspection before the beginning date of the
45 assisted lease and the Local Voucher Rent
46 Supplement Housing Assistance Payment
47 (HAP) Contract.
48
49 RENT REASONABLNESS Rent reasonable review must be conducted before Local
50 Rent Supplement Program participant rents a unit. The
16
1 OCHA will pay rents up to the rent reasonable amount, not
2 to exceed the exceptional payment standard utilized for
3 the PHA's HCV Program.
4
5 MOVING WITH CONTINUED ASSISTANCE AND PORTABILITY
6 Under the OC Local Rent Supplement Program, the OCHA issues an eligible family a voucher
7 and the family selects a unit of its choice within the Orange County geographic area, as
8 specified earlier in these guidelines. If the family moves out of the unit, the contract with the
9 owner ends and the family can move with continued assistance to another unit within the
10 Orange County geographic area.
11
12 Local Rent Supplement Program participants are not eligible for portability and must remain
13 within the Orange County geographic area.
14
15 ANNUAL/INTERIM REEXAMINATIONS The OCHA is required to process annual re-
16 examinations. In cases where a family experiences
17 a change in household composition and/or income
18 between annual re-examination, the PHA will
19 process an interim re-examination.
20
21 The family is required to report all changes in
22 household composition and/or income to the OCHA
23 within 10 calendar days of the occurrence.
24
25 RENTAL INCREASES Landlords may submit a request for a rent increase every other
26 year and approval is based on availability of funding and rent
27 reasonableness for the tenant.
28
29 TERMINATION OF ASSISTANCE AND TENANCY The OCHA is required to terminate a
30 family's assistance if certain
31 program rules are violated.
32
33 For other types of offense, the
34 OHCA has the discretion to either
35 terminate the family's assistance or
36 to take another action. All
37 participants must adhere to Section
38 8 Housing Choice Family
39 Obligations and Informal
40 Reviews/Hearings process.
41
42 Chair Dorosin clarified that this initial proposal anticipates 15 vouchers.
43 Sherrill Hampton said yes, and that is a slight increase from last year. She said HOME
44 funds are being leveraged here, and risk mitigation funds could be used if necessary.
45 Commissioner Price referred to the eligible subsidy costs, and the 5/5/5 breakdown, and
46 asked if that breakdown is based on actual need, and what would happen if the number of
47 applications varies.
48 Sherrill Hampton said selection of the tenants is based on a preference rating, and there
49 is some flexibility and it depends on the first round of persons selected and deemed eligible
50 under the preferences.
17
1 Travis Myren said the number of vouchers is dictated by the amount of money available.
2 He said very low income residents are being targeted, thus assuming a 100% subsidy. He said
3 the County could choose to target people at 60% of the average median income, which would
4 allow more people to be served, but would be people with less need.
5 Sherrill Hampton referred to rental assistance (page 2), and said the monthly assistance
6 is dependent on a family's income, and no family will pay more than 30% of their monthly-
7 adjusted income. She said there is flexibility with this, and the term of the rental assistance is
8 for one year. She said families would be recertified on an annual basis, as is consistent with
9 the federally funding housing choice voucher program.
10 Commissioner Price asked if there is a process in place for the security deposit when a
11 renter moves out of the County prior to the 12-month time period.
12 Sherrill Hampton said the deposit would come back to them.
13 Javon Holley explained the residency eligibility policy on page 3 of the PowerPoint
14 presentation, as well as the application process.
15 Sherrill Hampton said a limited time window for applying was chosen because there are
16 a limited number of vouchers: only 15. She said staff wanted to manage the number of
17 applications, and thus shorten the period for applications. She said the processing of
18 applications is labor intensive.
19 Javon Holley said it will take about 60-90 days to determine eligibility of an applicant,
20 and to do so, they will ask for proof of age, homelessness, or domestic violence.
21 Commissioner Price referred to the requirement that an applicant must meet necessary
22 criteria as determined by a professional licensed by the state, and asked if the licensed
23 professional can only be from North Carolina.
24 Sherrill Hampton said this program is only for Orange County residents, and staff would
25 like to see certification by a professional in the local area; however, if one has moved to the
26 area and has certification from out of state, that would also be acceptable.
27 Javon Holley said an out of state certification would be acceptable, as long as the
28 person is not living in Orange County.
29 Javon Holley referred back to the question of occupancy standards, and said the
30 program is flexible, and will allow for staff to ensure that the resident is matched with correctly
31 sized housing.
32 Sherrill Hampton said the federal program is not as flexible, and sometimes one with a
33 one-bedroom voucher is placed in a two-bedroom unit, and when the rent is raised, the voucher
34 is insufficient to cover the cost. She said the local program should be able to address this
35 problem.
36 Javon Holley referred to slide 6 on tenant selection, which will be prioritized by
37 application date and time, after other prioritization factors mentioned earlier, are also weighed.
38 Sherrill Hampton said residents on the current federal waiting list can still apply for the
39 Orange County voucher, but they must remain on the federal listing. She said there are 771
40 individuals on the federal waiting list.
41 Sherrill Hampton referred to slide 7 on criminal background, and staff will follow federal
42 guidelines on completing criminal and sex offender background checks on all persons in the
43 program. She said if a person needs to be denied because of a background check, staff will
44 notify them in writing. She reviewed the other reasons that one may be denied for the program.
45 Sherrill Hampton referred to slide 8, noting that all residents must pay rent of$50, and
46 staff will employ rent reasonableness. She said all financials will be carefully reviewed to
47 ensure this.
48 Sherrill Hampton said these vouchers are not portable, and residents will be allowed one
49 move per year. She said rent increases will only be accepted every other year. She said if a
18
1 resident can appeal if their assistance is terminated, which is true of the federal program as
2 well.
3 Commissioner Rich asked if the 15 vouchers are going to apply to all areas of the
4 County.
5 Sherrill Hampton said all over the County, as well as 10 miles outside of the County
6 boundaries.
7 Commissioner Rich asked if staff is working with the municipalities, or if this is just an
8 Orange County program.
9 Sherrill Hampton said it is just Orange County program, but staff is working with all the
10 providers who work with residents of all areas. She said housing could be all over the County,
11 but the housing has to be able to pass the Section 8 inspections.
12 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan in place to make the landlords and residents
13 aware of program.
14 Sherrill Hampton said the annual landlords meeting will take place on November 28th, at
15 which time staff will announce this proposed program. She said outreach will be done to
16 providers in January, and this information will be on the web, with a separate email address and
17 newspaper ads.
18 Commissioner Price asked what would happen if there is a family that needs a 4-
19 bedroom apartment, and will this program have the same criteria as HUD regarding the number
20 of square feet per bedroom per child.
21 Sherrill Hampton said the program will follow the same inspection standards as the
22 federal program, and bedrooms must have ingress and egress, closets, etc.
23 Javon Holley said the program will likely follow the HUD standards, which calls for the
24 head of household and spouse to have a bedroom, and every 2 family members thereafter
25 must have a bedroom.
26 Commissioner Price asked if there is flexibility built into the program to allow for a family
27 that needs four bedrooms.
28 Javon Holley said staff may have needed to exchange a three bedroom voucher for a
29 four bedroom one, but that will be possible.
30 Commissioner Price asked if those who do not meet requirement will be directed to
31 other housing options.
32 Sherrill Hampton said staff can refer those who do not qualify to other partners and
33 share a resource list with them. She said the housing supply is very limited in Orange County.
34 Sherrill Hampton said this model is set up that if there is a family that needs a 4
35 bedroom they will need to lose one of the rooms since rent would be too high. She said some
36 zip codes have a higher rate of rent than others, and as a result, the total amount of vouchers
37 may decrease.
38 Commissioner Price encouraged staff to continue to provide those who are rejected with
39 alternative resources. She reminded staff to please remember military veterans within the
40 target groups.
41 Javon Holley said the Veteran's Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program specifically
42 focuses on homeless veterans.
43 Commissioner Price said yes, but they still have a lot of homeless veterans.
44 Commissioner Jacobs asked if these families are seeking their own apartments or will
45 staff guide them.
46 Sherrill Hampton said residents are responsible for their search, and staff cannot steer,
47 but staff does send out lists of available homes.
48 Commissioner Jacobs asked if these families are anticipated to be in need of support
49 from the Department of Social Services (DSS) as well.
19
1 Sherrill Hampton said yes, and staff always refers residents back to local partners. She
2 said the housing department does not do case management.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said Durham has so many apartments, and may not like Orange
4 County residents being steered there. He asked if DSS will coordinate with other counties.
5 Sherrill Hampton said if one is living in that ten-mile radius, and thus becomes a resident
6 of Durham County, one would be eligible for Durham County programming and services.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said people will find more opportunities in Durham, and it may be
8 good to have some outreach to Durham Social Services.
9 Sherrill Hampton said Orange County residents under the federal program are ported to
10 Durham, and the administrative fee and funds goes to the Durham Housing Authority.
11 Commissioner Marcoplos said these people are looking the best place to meet their
12 needs, which may be Durham County. He said staff is not allowed to direct people.
13 Chair Dorosin said this is exciting. He clarified that the funding is coming partly from the
14 County general fund and partly from HOME funds.
15 Sherrill Hampton said yes.
16 Chair Dorosin asked if this program will be unavailable to undocumented residents due
17 to the use of some HOME funding.
18 Sherrill Hampton said if the money for the rent comes out of the HOME program, it
19 cannot be used by undocumented residents.
20 Chair Dorosin asked if the two piles of funding could be kept separate, thus allowing for
21 an undocumented resident to be funded using Orange County funds.
22 Sherrill Hampton said yes.
23 Sherrill Hampton said no utility assistance or security funds for an undocumented
24 person can be paid out of HOME funds, but the local risk mitigation money could be used for
25 this.
26 Chair Dorosin asked if staff could explain how this program will intersect with the
27 housing choice voucher program. He said there are 771 people on the housing choice waiting
28 list, and asked if these people can sign up for one of these local vouchers.
29 Sherrill Hampton said yes.
30 Chair Dorosin asked if it is possible for a person in the middle of the federal program
31 waiting list to move to the top of the list for a local voucher.
32 Sherrill Hampton said yes a person could move higher up on the local list if one meets
33 the preferences.
34 Javon Holley said the two cannot be mixed, but one can be on both lists and accept or
35 deny whichever becomes available first.
36 Chair Dorosin said there are 771 people on the housing choice voucher waiting list, and
37 asked if there are people who have these vouchers but cannot find housing, and thus lose the
38 voucher.
39 Sherrill Hampton said there is a 120-time period to secure housing, and yes, vouchers
40 can be lost. She said staff tries to check in at the 60-day mark to see how the search is going.
41 She said the HUD program allows for one 60-day extension, and the local program will allow for
42 two.
43 Chair Dorosin said one step of this process is creating more vouchers, and asked if a
44 targeted recruitment of landlords would be helpful through the towns or service partners.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said this program is great, but he had originally looked at going at
46 this differently by finding housing and subsidizing the apartment owner to reserve those units
47 for those who would then receive vouchers.
48 Sherrill Hampton referred to page one, and the type of help that will be available: tenant
49 based voucher, project based voucher, and sponsored based vouchers. She said more
50 vouchers are needed to make more happen, and staff has started with 15 vouchers to start,
20
1 and then go on to project and sponsored based. She said current funding is limited and staff
2 needed to start with tenant based, with the hopes of moving onto project/sponsor based.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said it would be easier to look for housing if one knows where to
4 look. He said staff may not be able to steer, but consistent partners make the search much
5 easier.
6 Sherrill Hampton said not everyone will want to live in Chapel Hill or Carrboro, and staff
7 wants to ensure choice. She said 270 landlords have been invited to the landlord meeting on
8 November 28"
9 Chair Dorosin referred to the $50 minimum rent, and asked if this can be waived.
10 Sherrill Hampton said yes.
11 Javon Holley said if one has no income, the $50 is typically waived.
12 Chair Dorosin referred to Attachment C (2019 fair market rents), and said the voucher
13 may not cover the amount of the rent. He asked if the voucher can be adjusted.
14 Sherrill Hampton said staff plans to do this by zip code, and some areas of the County
15 will exceed these amounts. She said vouchers can be adjusted to pay more, but that will
16 reduce the overall amount of available vouchers.
17 Commissioner Marcoplos said this program sounds very promising, and is glad to see it
18 moving forward. He clarified that staff mentioned a shortage of one-bedroom housing
19 inventory.
20 Sherrill Hampton said yes and thus residents who have one bedroom vouchers end up
21 with a two-bedroom unit. She said this especially true in urban areas, and developers do not
22 build one-bedroom units.
23 Commissioner Marcoplos said he wanted to highlight this need for a later discussion.
24 Javon Holley said this is a problem all over the country, and no one is building affordable
25 one-bedroom units, especially in urban areas.
26 Commissioner Marcoplos said a one-bedroom dwelling would only be suitable for 1-2
27 people.
28 Javon Holley said it can be larger, as the living room is allowed to be a bedroom.
29 Commissioner Marcoplos said the 1-2 person household could live in small (tiny) home.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Department on Aging is a part of these
31 conversations.
32 Sherrill Hampton said yes.
33 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Department on Aging is steering people to the
34 Housing Department, or is it working autonomously.
35 Sherrill Hampton said both departments are working together on the Mater Aging Plan
36 (MAP).
37 Chair Dorosin said there is consensus to move forward on this pilot program.
38
39 RECOMMENDATION(S):
40 The Manager recommends that the Board review the proposed guidelines for the new Orange
41 County Local Rent Supplement Program (OC-LRSP) and provide comments in preparation for
42 an upcoming regular meeting, authorizing the Manager to execute the necessary agreement(s)
43 with the Orange County Housing Authority to administer the Program.
44
45
46 3. Board of Commissioners - Boards and Commissions Appointment Process
47 Discussion
48
49 BACKGROUND:
21
1 Members of the Board of Commissioners have referenced various topics over the past year
2 related to Boards and Commissions for Board discussion. Staff met over the summer break to
3 review these topics and develop proposed recommendations/changes to be discussed further
4 at this work session. Attachment A details identified issues to be discussed, and Attachment C
5 depicts a proposed streamlined abstract format/membership roster/applicant interest list for
6 Board appointments.
7
8 1. Discussion Decision Point:
9 -To consider discussing the Adult Care Home CAC and the possibility of the
10 reduction in number of positions (since there are sometimes many vacancies)
11 and/or the option of merging this committee with the Nursing Home CAC.
12 See Attachment B- emails from Autumn Cox, Ombudsman, Area Agency on
13 Aging-TJCOG (attachment b).
14
15 Donna Baker said there were emails in the Commissioners' packets from the
16 Ombudsman, and suggested having her come to a meeting (annual presentations), and the
17 Chair of the Board to participate in any proposed changes the Board of County Commissioners
18 may want to propose. She said this Board wants to remain at its current size.
19 Commissioner Rich said it is hard to fill larger boards, and suggested talking about this
20 during the annual review. She said she would like to reduce this board, and other boards,
21 where possible, as it is frustrating when boards cannot have a quorum due to lack of numbers.
22 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if merging these boards would work, and allow the
23 same amount/type of work to be done.
24 Commissioner Price said she attended the Adult Care Home CAC, which meets in the
25 afternoon. She said this board was reviewing the various adult care homes.
26 Chair Dorosin said yes, one board reviews/monitors adult care homes and the other
27 focuses on nursing homes. He said these two types of homes are defined differently in the
28 statute, thus the two boards.
29 Commissioner Price asked if there are certain requirements for these boards.
30 John Roberts said there are training requirements for both of these boards, and the only
31 other statutory requirements are the minimum numbers.
32 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if these boards visit the actual care facilities.
33 The Board answered yes.
34 Commissioner Marcoplos said this is a capacity question, and if the same work can be
35 done with less people then a smaller board would be fine.
36 Chair Dorosin said the requirement is for a smaller number, and the year-long trainings
37 make it even more difficult to fill these boards. He said he agrees with reducing the number of
38 members. He agreed with Donna Baker and said to have Ombudsman to come and speak on
39 the pros and cons of reducing size or merging.
40 Thom Freeman said the training process changed a few months ago via a House Bill.
41 He said the applicant, once vetted, attends training for a few weeks. He said successful
42 trainees who want to proceed will be put forth to the BOCC for a one year initial term
43 appointment. He said when that first term is successfully completed, the candidate can go on
44 to a full term.
45 Commissioner Price said these boards have requested to come before the BOCC and
46 present their findings on a more regular basis.
47 Commissioner Rich said this opportunity is available at the annual review.
48 Commissioner Price said there is a desire to come before the Board outside of the
49 annual presentations.
22
1 Donna Baker said the Chair of these boards attends the annual review, but not the
2 Ombudsman, and scheduling this would likely be helpful. She said she will schedule a time.
3
4
5 2. Discussion/Decision Point:
6 --To consider the vetting of applicants for certain boards as appointments
7 come up (i.e., OWASA, BOA, Planning, ABC Board, etc.) by a committee made
8 up of BOCC members (two members) that would then make a
9 recommendation to the BOCC.
10
11 Chair Dorosin said the idea here is that there would be a sub-committee of the Board
12 that would make recommendations.
13 Commissioner McKee asked for clarification on "vetting".
14 Chair Dorosin said usually the Board gets a recommendation from an advisory board
15 and the Board of County Commissioners make the appointments. He said this would mean
16 another level of review by the Board of County Commissioners, while still having
17 recommendations from the board. He said it is a more thorough level of review prior to the
18 Board making an appointment.
19 Commissioner McKee questioned the need for another added level in the process.
20 Commissioner Rich said an example of this was when the OWASA appointment had to
21 resign, and she called everyone on the applicant listing to learn more about them, and who may
22 be the best person to represent them on the board. She said this is similar to when additional
23 questions were added to the application, and she feels that even those additional questions do
24 not always provide sufficient information. She said BOCC members are not connected to the
25 applicants.
26 Chair Dorosin asked if she could simply keep calling applicants when she wants to know
27 more.
28 Commissioner Rich said yes she could, but this is just a recommendation to find out
29 more about all applicants in a consistent way.
30 Chair Dorosin said this came up because everyone does not call applicants, and some
31 of the Board of County Commissioners felt that the recommendations from the advisory boards
32 may not be the best appointee for the Board of County Commissioners to appoint.
33 Chair Dorosin said he is loathe adding another level of bureaucracy to the process, but it
34 may be helpful to those that do not do their due diligence. He said Commissioners do not
35 always have the same information, and this suggestion seems to be a way to create a
36 consistent approach to knowing more about applicants.
37 Commissioner McKee said he does not think this suggestion will solve all of those
38 problems, and the more levels added to the application process, the more laborious it becomes,
39 and likely the fewer applicants the Board will receive.
40 Commissioner Price asked if this would only apply to the boards listed in the suggestion.
41 Chair Dorosin said it could apply to any board/commission.
42 Commissioner Price said she could see value in some of these boards having a deeper
43 dive investigation by the BOCC, but if boards are already vetting applicants she would have a
44 hard time going behind their backs and doing more vetting. She said she would favor either the
45 advisory board or the BOCC doing the vetting, but not necessarily both.
46 Chair Dorosin said the BOCC already has occasions when it rejects the
47 recommendation of the advisory board.
48 Commissioner Price said yes, and she is not left with good feelings when that happens.
23
1 Commissioner Marcoplos said the BOCC often lacks information on their applicants,
2 and a deeper level of vetting would likely be helpful in that regard, but this suggestion would
3 involve a lot of time, and is unsure how the BOCC would choose which boards to vet.
4 Chair Dorosin said the BOCC has already done this to some extent with the additional
5 questions on the boards that have fiduciary responsibilities.
6 Commissioner Marcoplos said the vetting duo could take the recommendations from the
7 boards and confirm or repudiate. He suggested experimenting for 6 months, see how it goes,
8 and then evaluate.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said at one point the BOCC made the list based on the boards
10 that had fiduciary responsibilities. He said it could be limited to that, with the addition of the
11 Board of Adjustment.
12 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the BOCC receives recommendations from boards
13 that do not have fiduciary responsibilities.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said yes, but there is more riding on the boards with fiduciary
15 responsibility, and it is hard to talk about this in public for fear of casting dispersions on anyone.
16 He said concerns could be pursued privately, allowing informed recommendations to be made
17 publicly.
18 Commissioner Burroughs said Commissioner Jacobs is at the heart of the problem, as
19 there is often knowledge about applicants, but it is uncomfortable to share in public. She said
20 the solution is for board members to read the appointments in the packet early on, and let their
21 colleagues know of any concerns.
22 Chair Dorosin suggested having appointments once a month or quarterly, as a main
23 agenda item, and if anyone has any reason to hold an appointment, then this appointment
24 could be referred to the two-person sub-committee, and come back on the next meeting. He
25 said the Commissioner with concerns can share them with the two-person sub-committee.
26 Chair Dorosin said appointments need to be moved up, or made into more of an item on
27 the agenda, as opposed to an afterthought at the end of a meeting.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said there is also the issue of filling vacancies when there is an
29 applicant but no recommendation form the advisory board. He said the two-person committee
30 could inquire with the department head as to why the advisory board did not recommend an
31 applicant even though applicants existed. He said this would empower the advisory boards.
32 Commissioner Price said if the appointment needed to be deferred, would the two-
33 person subcommittee be appointed at that time to review the candidate.
34 Chair Dorosin said it could be standing two-person committee or a rotating one.
35
36 3. Discussion/Decision Point
37 --To consider not having elected officials from other jurisdictions representing
38 Orange County on a board/commission.
39
40 Chair Dorosin said there is no policy for this at this point.
41 Commissioner Rich said this discussion point was raised in response to having former
42 Board of County Commissioners members representing Orange County once retired. She said
43 she does not like this practice.
44 Chair Dorosin asked if she would feel this way even if it is a position that would
45 otherwise be filled by an Orange County resident.
46 Commissioner Rich said it would be fine to be a resident representative, but they should
47 not be representing the BOCC.
48 Chair Dorosin said this discussion point is broader than that, and gave the example of
49 someone from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools board, wanting to be on the Orange
50 County Planning Board.
24
1 Commissioner Price read it as Commissioner Rich did.
2 Chair Dorosin said he thinks all can agree that no one should represent the BOCC other
3 than current Commissioners.
4 Commissioner Rich said the Board has done that very thing on two occasions.
5 Chair Dorosin said he thinks everyone agrees that should not happen.
6 Chair Dorosin said this question came up because another elected official was serving
7 on an Orange County boards.
8 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this could be addressed on a case by case basis, and
9 if an elected official is especially well matched to serve on a board then it seems acceptable to
10 allow them serve. He said a member of the Chapel Hill Town Council serving on the Orange
11 County Planning Board would likely not be a good idea.
12 Chair Dorosin said that is the status quo.
13 Commissioner McKee said the BOCC is already able to appoint or not appoint whom it
14 likes to boards or commissions.
15 Chair Dorosin said the question is whether the Board keeps it on an ad hoc policy, or
16 make it a matter of policy that if one is serving as an elected official on another board in Orange
17 County, then one should not be apply to be on a County advisory board/commission. He said if
18 one is extremely interested, one can attend the meetings.
19 Chair Dorosin said an elected official has many opportunities to have a voice in local
20 government and can also have the ear of the BOCC quite easily. He questions if they need to
21 serve on a board.
22 Commissioner Price said she would prefer to see people go as an interested citizen or a
23 liaison, but not as a voting member. She said having an elected official on a board/commission
24 can be intimidating to others.
25 Chair Dorosin said he sees no reason to make them a liaison, and if one is interested
26 they can simply attend meetings. He said he has mixed feelings about it: if one wants to serve,
27 one should be able to serve; however, he also sees it as a closed universe when elected
28 officials serve on advisory boards. He said these boards/commissions are like the minor
29 leagues to becoming an elected official, and there is a desire for greater diversity and new
30 voices on these boards. He said he would probably be in favor of not having elected officials on
31 these boards.
32 Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Price agreed.
33 Commissioner McKee said making it a policy will limit options, and if the BOCC does not
34 want to appoint someone to a board, for any reason, it can do so. He said a policy is
35 unnecessary.
36 Commissioner Price said having a policy would inform elected officials not to even
37 apply, and thus avoid getting their hopes up.
38 Commissioner McKee said these are big boys and girls, who can handle it.
39 Chair Dorosin said he is hearing that a majority of the Board of County Commissioners
40 is in favor of making this part of the advisory board policy.
41 Commissioner Rich suggested that the Clerk poll other jurisdictions, as maybe there are
42 other solutions out there.
43 Chair Dorosin asked if any members of the BOCC serve on municipal boards.
44 The Board said no.
45 Commissioner Rich said she would not even try to serve.
46
47 4. Discussion/Decision Point:
48 -Applicants —To consider either revising the Applicant Application to allow
49 applicants to include other governmental boards (municipal) they may be
50 currently serving on OR requiring that applicants can only serve on two
25
1 advisory boards (which our policy currently states but that only includes other
2 Orange County advisory boards) and including within this parameter for two
3 boards — both Orange County and/or municipal boards.
4
5 Chair Dorosin said this gets to the heart of the "closed circle" that participates in
6 boards/commissions.
7 Commissioner Price clarified that this would limit one from being on Orange County
8 Planning Board, Chapel Hill Planning Board and OWASA all at the same time, for example.
9 Chair Dorosin said yes. He said the current policy states that one can only serve on 2
10 Orange County boards, and this would limit service to one Orange County board and one other
11 board.
12 Donna Baker said in order to accomplish this staff could add another question to
13 application as to which boards an applicant is currently serving on outside of Orange County
14 boards.
15 Commissioner McKee said he is not in favor of this change as the BOCC already has
16 the authority to accept or reject any applicant to its boards/commissions.
17 Commissioner Price said one can serve on two County boards as well as one task force.
18 Commissioner Rich said it is important to know where other people are serving from an
19 informational standpoint, and perhaps a policy is unnecessary, but she would like to know the
20 information.
21 Commissioner McKee said he questions how often this is really happening, and doubts
22 it is happening enough to warrant a policy. He said he is fundamentally against layer upon
23 layer of bureaucracy. He said the BOCC is not swamped by applications for these boards or
24 commissions.
25 Chair Dorosin said the BOCC sees the same names over and over again.
26 Commissioner McKee said that happens everywhere: churches, fire departments, town
27 councils, etc. He questions why the BOCC would add layers to this process, as it seems to be
28 like killing a fly with a shotgun.
29 Commissioner Marcoplos said he basically agreed with Commissioner McKee, and
30 would rather just take it on a case-by-case basis. He said if one is worming their way onto
31 multiple boards, then the BOCC would not appoint them to another; but if one is serving on two
32 boards, but has a unique talent or knowledge to make them appropriate for another board, he
33 would be in favor of that person's appointment. He said no one wants to see the same people
34 hogging all the positions on powerful committees, but there is also a desire to fill the gaps with
35 people who can best serve.
36 Chair Dorosin said perhaps it makes sense to simply add the question to the application.
37 Thom Freeman said it is a bit of a moving target. He said the question can be added to
38 the initial application, but over time the answer to that question may change. He said it is hard
39 to monitor.
40 Commissioner Price asked if staff was checking into the accuracy of an application prior
41 to an appointment being placed on BOCC agenda.
42 Thom Freeman said if an application is 6-12 months old, he checks to see if the
43 applicant is still interested. He also asks for updates, and can add in this question about
44 service on other boards.
45 Commissioner Price said to add a box or line to application.
46 Chair Dorosin said there is consensus to add the question of whether one serves on
47 other boards to the application.
48
49 5. Discussion/Decision Point:
26
1 - At Large vs Designated Positions- to consider reducing the number of
2 designated positions and replace with at- large positions to better fill more
3 positions on boards/commissions in a timely manner.
4
5 Chair Dorosin said sometimes this is geographical nature and some of it is categorical.
6 He said a change was made a couple of years ago that if a position is vacant more than 6
7 months, the BOCC can appoint someone else or revisit the current make up.
8 Commissioner Price asked if the current method is not working.
9 Chair Dorosin said the current method is fine, but he has concerns about some of the
10 designated positions, especially the categorical ones, which can be hard to fill.
11 Commissioner Rich said the BOCC can move people around if an appropriate applicant
12 comes forward to fill a categorical/geographical spot that the BOCC has already filled.
13 Chair Dorosin said yes this can happen, as long as there is an additional vacancy to
14 move someone into.
15 No action to take.
16
17 6. Discussion/Decision Point:
18
19 -To consider adding appointments on the agendas on a quarterly basis only.
20 (However, there may be "time sensitive" appointments once in a while)
21
22 7. Discussion/Decision Point:
23 -To consider moving the Appointments higher up on the Agenda
24
25 Chair Dorosin said to combine these two discussion points, and the BOCC already
26 discussed about moving appointments to another format: quarterly, bi-monthly, once a month.
27 Chair Dorosin said this makes sense to him, as well as flagging those that need
28 additional review, as previously discussed.
29 Commissioner Price said she agrees with moving appointments up on the agenda, but
30 said if appointments are only reviewed quarterly, and was deferred for any reason, it would
31 delay a vacancy being filled for quite some time.
32 Chair Dorosin said a deferred item could be brought back at the next meeting.
33 Commissioner McKee said the agenda is so front-loaded now, and it is often 8pm before
34 the BOCC gets into the meat of the agenda. He said moving this up on the agenda will move
35 other priority items further down. He said the focus should be on addressing items that the
36 public comes for, and appointments are housekeeping items.
37 Chair Dorosin reviewed the agenda, and said appointments are usually item 11. He
38 suggests moving appointments up to the regular agenda or reports.
39 Commissioner McKee said that would be fine, and is of less concern to him.
40 Commissioner Rich said when she served on the Chapel Hill Town Council, they voted
41 by ballots. She said the clerk would tally the vote at the meeting, and unless it was a tie, there
42 would be no discussion. She says it quicker, but not as transparent.
43 Chair Dorosin asked if there was any discussion.
44 Commissioner Rich said discussion happened beforehand, and it was not as
45 transparent.
46 Chair Dorosin said it is not transparent at all.
47 Commissioner McKee said he would have an issue with that process.
48 Commissioner Marcoplos said he liked hearing why people nominate, etc.
49 John Roberts said he questions if that is legal, because the minutes need to reflect the
50 vote.
27
1 Commissioner Rich said at the end of a meeting, the Board is keen to get out of the
2 meeting, and may not be having necessary discussions.
3 Chair Dorosin said there is agreement to move appointments up a bit in the agenda, and
4 to do them bi-monthly or quarterly as a regular item that allows for more discussion.
5 Commissioner Rich said if appointments are placed before consent, then staff will wait
6 longer to see if a consent item is going to be pulled. She said if the Commissioners can agree
7 to inform everyone ahead of time if they plan to pull a consent item, it would ensure that staff
8 does not have to linger.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a deadline to reveal concerns about agenda items,
10 and if the Chair sticks to that deadline a Commissioner would be unable to pull an item at the
11 last minute.
12 Chair Dorosin agreed.
13 Staff will review agenda format and then propose/move the appointments to a different
14 location on the agenda (rather before the Manager/Attorney Comments or under regular
15 agenda or reports.)
16
17 8. Discussion/Decision Point:
18 -Applicant Interest Listing: Thom Freeman currently contacts applicants
19 before putting up on abstracts to see if they are still interested in a position on
20 a board and if there is no response email/call within a specified timeframe-
21 and it is still less than two years for the application on file, does staff keep
22 applicant on interest list or remove.
23
24 Chair Dorosin said this is like purging voters.
25 Commissioner Rich said to give applicants a time frame in which to respond to Thom
26 Freeman's contact, and tell them if they do not respond in a timely manner, they will be purged
27 from the list.
28 Commissioner Marcoplos said one can apply again.
29 Thom Freeman said the applicant is removed from the list, but he keeps their contact
30 information.
31
32 9. Discussion/Decision Point:
33
34 -Appointments: Reformatting of appointment abstract (to reduce duplication
35 of information), membership roster and applicant interest listing to orientate
36 both to same format and reduction of duplication of information on applicant
37 interest list. (examples in attachment C- were used on a trial basis at the Sept.
38 4t" meeting).
39
40 Already in place.
41
42 10. Discussion/Decision Point:
43 -Boards/Commissions Attendance by BOCC members: To request an alternate
44 to attend meetings if a BOCC member is unable to attend a board or
45 commission meeting (whether it is an internal board/commission or an
46 intergovernmental board).
47
48 Donna Baker said if a Commissioner is unable to attend, and there is no designated
49 alternate, the Commissioner could call another Commissioner to attend in their place.
50 Commissioner Burroughs said she thinks this already happens.
28
1 Chair Dorosin said to let the Clerk know if you are unable to attend a particular board or
2 commission meeting, and if that board does not have designated alternate member, Donna
3 Baker can let full Board know to see if anyone else wants to attend.
4 Commissioner Marcoplos said this is likely only an issue where a board has only one
5 BOCC representative, and perhaps a back up could be designated ahead of time for those
6 boards.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said this places the responsibility on the Commissioner to get in
8 touch with the alternate, which does not always happen.
9 Commissioner Burroughs said the BOCC should be paid more, as this job is getting
10 bigger and bigger.
11 Commissioner Price said certain boards have training requirements, so an alternate
12 would be ineligible to fully participate/vote.
13 Chair Dorosin said an alternate could just go and listen.
14 Commissioner Rich said it would be good to have someone present
15 Chair Dorosin said work with the Clerk if you are unable to attend a meeting such as
16 above.
17
18 4. Discussion on Alternatives for Potential Environmental Impacts Section on BOCC
19 Meeting Agenda Abstracts
20
21 BACKGROUND:
22 In response to an April 26, 2018 petition from the Board of Commissioners to potentially begin
23 outlining environmental impacts within agenda item abstracts, staff has prepared two draft
24 agenda abstract templates for Board discussion and feedback. Both templates are integrated
25 approaches that recognize and illustrate the three sustainability components of:
26 • Environment (related to the 2005 Environmental Responsibility Goal - Attachment C);
27 • Equity (related to the 2010 Social Justice Goal - Attachment D); and
28 • Economy (Financial Impact).
29
30 The templates are as follows:
31
32 Attachment A— Minimal Edits — Current abstract format with integrated approach including
33 the impacts related to the 2005 Environmental Responsibility Goal.
34
35 Attachment B —Tabular Format—Walks abstract writers and readers through the elements of
36 the County's goals and their relation to the proposed action being requested of the Board.
37 The first of the attached draft templates makes the fewest changes to the current abstract
38 template in grouping the Financial, Social Justice, and Environmental Impacts together and
39 providing an open text field in which staff can select from the goals documents.
40
41 The second template uses a tabular format to guide the selection of the relevant goals and
42 objectives that should be considered, and provides staff with an area to address the goals to
43 which the abstract applies.
44
45 The current Social Justice Impacts section of the abstract template allows staff to select the
46 relevant Social Justice Goals adopted by the BOCC in 2010 (note Attachment B). Similarly, the
47 County also adopted an Environmental Responsibility Goal with 10 related objectives in 2005
48 (note Attachment C). The CFE also periodically adopts a State of the Environment report with
49 metrics to assess environmental impacts. For the Board's reference, the 2014 State of the
50 Environment Report can be found at this link: www.orangecountync.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=63
29
1 One or both of these documents can be used as the base reference documents for the
2 proposed environmental impacts section.
3
4 During the work session, staff will present these concepts and will facilitate the Board's
5 discussion to generate guidance for staff and the Commission for the Environment.
6
7 It is proposed that the CFE, which considered this subject several years ago, review and advise
8 on how this could be holistically addressed in the framework on an agenda abstract. The CFE
9 will begin discussing this topic at its November meeting.
10
1 1 David Stancil, Department for the Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
12 (DEAPR) Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
13
14 Assessing Environmental Impact In BOCC Abstracts
15 November 8, 2018
16
17 Need a concise, yet informative tool
18 Must be able to assess in reasonable time, but be as holistic as possible
19 Metrics should be understandable and usable by all types of abstract writers
20 Some constraints may exist in usage
21
22 How To Measure - Agenda Abstract
23 Opportunity to create a sustainabilL framework for agenda item impact (equity, economy,
24 environment)
25 Equity (Social Justice) and Economy (Financial Impact) addressed now
26 Engage the Commission for the Environment to review possible tools
27
28 One Possible Approach
29 1. A quick measure against a set of environmental goals (Environmental Responsibility
30 Goal)
31 2. A tabular assessment using locally-created checklist (drawn from ER Goal, State of
32 Environment, other sources if desired)
33 3. Some combination of the two, or an alternative metrics
34
35 Potential Templates (Attachment a and b)
36 Review the two templates, offering feedback and guidance, additional ideas
37 Convey feedback and other direction to the Commission for the Environment for use in creating
38 recommendation to the BOCC
39
40 Recommendation
41
42 Commissioner Marcoplos said as soon as he suggested this addition, he was
43 overwhelmed by the complexities of it. He said he appreciates staff's efforts. He said the
44 social and financial goals always seem philosophical to him, whereas the more specific
45 information that would come out of the table would be more useful and more educational for the
46 both the BOCC and the public. He likes the idea of running it by the Commission for the
47 Environment (CfE). He said he would add another category under environmental, which would
48 be something like "impact on energy usage/carbon footprint". He said he likes the other four
49 categories, and this looks like it would work.
30
1 Commissioner Jacobs said he felt just the opposite, and he would like it to be as simple
2 as possible, and a minimal burden on staff. He said running it by another advisory board is an
3 onerous process. He said the Planning Board would also likely want to weigh in, which will
4 cause delays and staff will resent and dread it. He said in terms of practicality it does not work
5 as well as the other two goals on the abstract, and he said a simple version would be best with
6 larger items being fleshed out as regular agenda items.
7 Commissioner Marcoplos said he agreed, and he thought that the CfE would only look
8 at the template one time to provide input on its creation, not so that every issue would be run
9 through the CfE.
10 David Stancil said staff would forward the idea to the CfE for initial input, but would not
11 be reviewing every abstract.
12 Commissioner Marcoplos said this would be quick and dirty, but more or less accurate.
13 Commissioner McKee said he would be in favor of a simple statement, like the other two
14 goals, but anything else is layering on extra work for staff. He said there is a perception that
15 Orange County is anti-business, and he said this Board has worked hard to reduce this
16 perception. He said he is concerned that if the Board gets too involved in laying out specific
17 parameters, it will be interpreted as specific regulations in the making, thus reinforcing the anti-
18 business perception.
19 Commissioner Marcoplos said it may be that it does not end up being a little introduction
20 at the beginning, and over time it may end up being applied within the greater analysis of any
21 issue. He said there are things related to the environment, which the Board should know about
22 on any issue that comes before the Board, e.g.: what is the effect on waste reduction/energy
23 use, etc.
24 Commissioner McKee said it is information to which the Board already has access, and
25 this would add another level of work on staff on every abstract.
26 Commissioner Marcoplos said what if the Board wanted to know the energy use of the
27 new jail.
28 Commissioner McKee said to simply ask staff to provide that information.
29 Commissioner Marcoplos said there should be a short list of environmental information
30 that the Board should want, and have, on every project without having to ask.
31 Commissioner McKee said he thinks staff is already doing this.
32 Commissioner Rich said the issue is that this information could already be in abstract up
33 front, as opposed to having to ask the questions during a presentation.
34 Commissioner McKee said a lot of the projects already have this information included,
35 and this simply seems like more work for staff without a defined reason for the work.
36 Commissioner Rich said the work to gather the information is already being done, and
37 the question is how does it match up with the environmental goal that may be added to the
38 abstract.
39 Commissioner McKee asked if there is a reason to have it as a written goal. He said
40 there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Orange County is environmentally conscious, and he
41 wonders what they are trying to accomplish.
42 Commissioner Rich said the public is asking for this, and the County has values, which
43 should be at the forefront of all that it does.
44 Commissioner McKee said Orange County had a reputation of being anti-business.
45 Commissioner Rich said she does not want to debate that issue, but if the County has
46 values of being environmentally conscious, it should promote this at the forefront and keep it in
47 mind with all goals.
48 Commissioner McKee said Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion accomplishes that.
31
1 Commissioner Jacobs said it will be just like the other goals, and it seemed like
2 everyone is in accord with the short statement being added. He said he misunderstood the role
3 of the CfE.
4 Commissioner McKee asked if there is purpose to the tabular format.
5 Chair Dorosin said the current format of the social justice goal is not useful, and it would
6 be more useful to have a short statement of why/how a particular item impacts the social justice
7 goal. He said he would think the same would be true of the environmental justice goal. He said
8 to put the three statements (financial, social, and environmental) on the front page, since many
9 times that is all people read.
10 Chair Dorosin said he understands the argument for not creating more work on staff.
11 Travis Myren said staff would be concerned about going through multiple projects, and
12 trying to quantify every aspect as pertains to goals; but a simple, general statement would be
13 fine.
14 Commissioner McKee said it reeks of patting themselves on the back.
15 Commissioner Marcoplos said if in the course of putting the agenda, it would be helpful
16 to include a few factoids to give public something to chew on.
17 Travis Myren said some projects would be more conducive to doing that than others.
18 Chair Dorosin said more complex items could be detailed during
19 presentations/discussions.
20 Commissioner Price said she does not review the social justice statements, and would
21 prefer to see the impact of different projects, both positive and negative.
22 David Stancil said staff will take the Board comments and suggestions to the
23 Commissioner for the Environment, and bring a proposed template at some future date.
24
25 Commissioner Marcoplos said he wanted to talk about the ground rules for Board of
26 County Commissioners, and how the Board members choose which boards on which they want
27 to serve in the coming year. He asked if there are specific rules laid out for the process, and he
28 thought there was.
29 Donna Baker said the Board made and adopted some changes to the process last year.
30 She said it is a short policy, which she can forward to the full Board. She said it would be a part
31 of the packet for the last meeting in December, and the boards and commissions will be chosen
32 that night as a part of a regular meeting.
33 Chair Dorosin summarized the process: each Commissioner gets one save only; each
34 Commissioner can serve two 1-year terms on intra-County boards, and four 1-year terms on an
35 intergovernmental board. He said this practice was not retroactive.
36 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if a Commissioner has served one year on a board, and
37 wishes to remain on it for a second year, would this be the Commissioner's one save.
38 Chair Dorosin said yes, this would be the one save.
39 Commissioner Marcoplos clarified that the BOCC is not committed to having a
40 Commissioner serve two years on every board.
41 Chair Dorosin said no, the BOCC is not committed to having Commissioners serve for
42 two years.
43 Commissioner Marcoplos said that this means the BOCC is okay with a Commissioner
44 learning the ropes of a particular board during the first year, only to leave and be replaced by a
45 different Commissioner the following year. He said he thought the intent was to have two years
46 on a board in order to understand it and be effective. He said it would also be beneficial for one
47 to serve a decent amount of time on an intergovernmental board for the same reasons.
48 Chair Dorosin said there was no agreement to Commissioners having two-year terms on
49 a board, and this is why boards and commissioners are chosen yearly.
32
1 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is any concern about a Commissioner being
2 experienced in order to be effective, and simply flipping from one Commissioner to another
3 from year to year.
4 Chair Dorosin said if a Board member feels strongly about staying on a particular
5 board/commission, then said Board member can present that request/argument to the rest of
6 the Board and the Board can determine whether it agrees or not. He said it was his
7 understanding that each Commissioner gets one save, and there are the other limits as
8 previously outlined. He said just because one gets appointed to board "x" does not mean that
9 one will be on that board for 2 years. He said all the boards and commissions are on the list
10 every year. He said the intergovernmental boards having longer limits to allow for a
11 Commissioner to get fully immersed and be most effective.
12 Commissioner Marcoplos said he just wanted clarification, and looks forward to reading
13 the written rules/process when forwarded by the Clerk.
14 Chair Dorosin said the choosing process will occur on December 11.
15 Commissioner Rich said the choices are not approved until the first meeting in January.
16 Donna Baker said she notifies the boards after the choices are made, but there are no
17 work sessions in December or January, and the Board decided last year to move this process
18 forward to December.
19 Commissioner Price said some of the boards start meeting before the Commissioners
20 have things situated.
21
22 The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
23
24
25 Mark Dorosin, Chair
26
27
28 Donna Baker
29 Clerk to the Board
1
I Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 November 13, 2018
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November
10 13, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23 Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
24 - PowerPoint for item 6-a
25 - Pink sheet: Proposed Item to be added to agenda: Resolution Opposing NCDOT Incursion
26 into Oosting Natural Area as Item 4-b
27
28 Commissioner Jacobs requested to add this resolution to the agenda as item 4-b.
29 Commissioner McKee objected to adding resolutions to the agenda at the last minute,
30 as the public is unaware of them.
31 Chair Dorosin noted the objection, and added the item to the agenda.
32
33 PUBLIC CHARGE
34 The chair dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
35
36 Arts Moment
37 Molly Waybright, Arts Commission intern, presented the artist:
38
39 Daniel Wallace is author of six novels, including Big Fish (1998), Ray in Reverse (2000),
40 The Watermelon King (2003), Mr. Sebastian and the Negro Magician (2007), The Kings and
41 Queens of Roam (2013), and most recently Extraordinary Adventures (May 2017). His
42 children's book, published in 2014, and for which he did both the words and the pictures, is
43 called The Cat's Pajamas, and it is adorable. In 2003 Big Fish was adapted and released as a
44 movie and then in 2013 the book and the movie were mish-mashed together and became a
45 Broadway musical. His novels have been translated into over two-dozen languages. Daniel is
46 the J. Ross MacDonald Distinguished Professor of English at the University of North Carolina at
47 Chapel Hill, his alma mater, where he directs the Creative Writing Program.
48 Daniel Wallace read one of his short stories.
49
50 2. Public Comments
2
1
2 Commissioner Marcoplos arrived at 7:14 p.m.
3
4 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
5 Eugene Casale said the residents of the Northwoods neighborhood are aware that the
6 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) wants to run Eubanks Road through
7 their neighborhood, and he is representing himself and his neighbors, who are shocked and
8 opposed to DOT's plan. He said there is great concern about the loss of houses, effect on
9 property values, effects on wells and septic systems, the increase in noise and air pollution, and
10 the loss of overall safety. He said the residents are interested in finding an alternate solution to
11 the problem that DOT thinks it has, while preserving the neighborhood to the greatest extent
12 possible. He said the neighborhood is in an extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), and is seeking
13 support from the County on how to navigate these issues moving forward. He said the
14 neighbors would like to be included in future discussions regarding this item.
15 Natasha Elliot distributed a handout, and said she is the Executive Director of the
16 Central Piedmont Community Action (CPCA). She reviewed the handout, which covered areas
17 of success in providing services in Orange County, such as weatherization and heating and air
18 replacement services for low-income residents. She said the organization is in need of board
19 membership from Orange County, including a low-income individual and a private industry
20 individual.
21 Sheryl Andrews said she is the CPCA Community Block Grant Program Director, and
22 she described the services they provide and the successes of their program.
23 John Hollingworth said he is a Northwood's resident, and is opposed to the DOT
24 proposed widening of 1-40, which will affect their neighborhood. He petitioned the Board of
25 County Commissioners (BOCC) to put this on its agendas going forward and to make it a
26 priority.
27 Waddy Davis said he is a resident of the Northwoods neighborhood, and appealed to
28 the Board of County Commissioners that this item be added to the future discussion of the 1-40
29 widening project.
30 Eric Broo said he is a resident of Northwood's neighborhood, and this proposed project
31 took them by surprise. He said DOT usually comes with more than one option, and the
32 neighbors want to know what the other options are. He said it is not clear what is going to
33 happen, and this proposal is expensive and destructive. He said the neighbors are concerned
34 about the wells and septic systems, but they want to work with the DOT to find a more suitable
35 solution. He said the community will be significantly affected.
36 Chair Dorosin said the Board hears and shares these concerns, and the Board
37 understands that being in the ETJ is a hybrid area and the Board appreciates the neighbors
38 coming out. He said the Board will make sure the neighborhood is informed and included.
39 Commissioner Price asked if the date of the next DOT meeting is known.
40 Commissioner Marcoplos said the meeting was scheduled, but it was the day the
41 Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) water main broke. He said the meeting was
42 postponed until after the holidays.
43 Commissioner Marcoplos said DOT did not have as much information as it should have
44 at the meeting, which was cut short. He asked if Orange County staff would work to help fill in
45 the gaps and share with DOT and the neighborhood, so that DOT comes more prepared next
46 time.
47 Bonnie Hammersley said staff reached out to DOT, but has not heard back.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said he called the DOT board member about this situation last
49 week, noting how unsatisfactory the process had been thus far. He said the DOT member
50 agreed, and promised to make phone calls to improve the process.
3
1 Commissioner Jacobs said he also spoke to the representative about the things he
2 thought had been missed, which is noted in the added resolution to the agenda. He said the
3 NE quadrant of the interchange is part of the Duke Forest and the rural buffer, which has been
4 protected for over 60 years. He said he also spoke to the representative about the
5 neighborhood well, and the impact that this proposal would have on it.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said DOT seeks to expedite this process, and the consultants
7 with whom they were speaking last week, are making some of these proposals. He said there
8 is some sorting out that DOT needs to do, and the gentleman, with whom Commissioner
9 Jacobs spoke, is the Chair of the Board of DOT. He said he hopes the process will improve
10 going forward.
11 Commissioner McKee asked if Bonnie Hammersley would outline the best procedure for
12 the neighbors to stay current on this process, and if a mailing list would be useful.
13 Bonnie Hammersley said residents can go to the Orange County website to sign up for
14 email notifications, and then a distribution list can be made by the Community Relations
15 Director.
16 Commissioner Price asked staff to find out when DOT is meeting, and said the Board of
17 County Commissioners may want to bring this up to the state legislatures.
18 Commissioner Rich said she has already mentioned this issue to the legislators, and
19 asked staff to coordinate with the Town of Chapel Hill.
20
21 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
22 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
23 below.)
24
25 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
26 Commissioner Price asked Bonnie Hammersley if Piedmont Community Action was
27 formerly JOCCA.
28 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
29 Commissioner McKee had no comments.
30 Commissioner Jacobs had no comments.
31 Commissioner Rich said the ID law has passed, and asked if staff can talk with the
32 Director of Elections about a campaign to inform/educate the public.
33 Commissioner Burroughs petitioned staff to review the County Commissioners'
34 compensation package, taking into account the number of BOCC meetings, as well as
35 liasionships. She said the Board of County Commissioners works very hard, and it is not a low-
36 key, part-time job. She said this job is not sustainable for people who work full time, but are not
37 self employed, and in an effort to recruit more diversity over time, the position needs to be
38 attainable for a larger pool of candidates. She asked if staff would come back with a proposal
39 during budget meetings.
40 Commissioner Jacobs agreed.
41 Commissioner Marcoplos had no comments.
42 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Director of the Board of Elections could provide a
43 report to the BOCC after every election about how the election process went.
44 Chair Dorosin said a couple of weeks ago the Board passed a resolution rescinding the
45 Board's previous support of a Confederate monument on Franklin Street; and, in that same
46 spirit, he suggested the BOCC read a book called, "The Free Men" by John Ehle. He said the
47 book covers a time in local history when students and residents protested to have a public
48 accommodations ordinance passed, prior to the existence of the Civil Rights Act. He said what
49 happens in the courtroom is an outlandish injustice, and demonstrates an abuse of judicial
4
1 discretion. He said at that time, the BOCC passed a resolution honoring the Judge, and he
2 would like a resolution in the near future to rescind that previous resolution.
3
4 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
5
6 a. Resolution Retiring Canine Lacey and Transferring Her to Former K9 Handler
7 The Board considered voting to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a resolution
8 retiring canine Lacey and transferring her to former K9 Handler Malcolm Hester.
9
10 BACKGROUND:
11 The Orange County Sheriff's Office acquired canine Lacey in February 2015. Lacey was
12 assigned to former Sheriff's Office Deputy Malcolm Hester who trained her. Lacey served for
13 over three years as Hester's canine partner, conducting searches, rescues, and tracking lost
14 individuals and suspects. Due to the age of the canine and inconsistent reliability, the Sheriff's
15 Office will retire Lacey from service and intends to transfer her to her former K9 handler,
16 Malcolm Hester. North Carolina General Statutes §§ 153A-176, 160A-265, and 160A-266
17 authorize the County to dispose of any personal property belonging to it according to the
18 procedures described in Chapter 160A, Article 12.
19
20 Sheriff Blackwood said Lacey was brought on with Cagney, another Bloodhound, and
21 served her position faithfully. He said she is a wonderful dog, who has been greatly loved by
22 the Department.
23 Malcolm Hester (the handler) said he worked with Lacey for four years, and they worked
24 well and formed a bond that is like no other.
25 Commissioner Burroughs read the resolution:
26
27 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
28 RESOLUTION RETIRING CANINE LACEY
29 AND TRANSFERRING HER TO FORMER K9 HANDLER CPL MALCOLM HESTER
30
31 WHEREAS, the Orange County Sheriff's Office shall retire police canine Lacey, a bloodhound
32 previously used for conducting searches, rescues, and tracking, effective November 13, 2018;
33 and
34
35 WHEREAS, Lacey is personal property of the County and is no longer of use or value to
36 Orange County and the Sheriff's Office from this date forth; and
37
38 WHEREAS, Malcolm Hester, previously with the Orange County Sheriff's Office, bonded with
39 and worked with the canine from the time of her acquisition as a puppy in February 2015; and
40
41 WHEREAS, Malcolm Hester is willing and able to provide immediate care for Lacey; and
42
43 WHEREAS, Malcolm Hester will adopt and take full responsibility for Lacey until such time as
44 the canine is no longer living, relieving Orange County and the Orange County Sheriff's Office
45 of all obligations and responsibilities of the canine in accordance with the provisions of this
46 Resolution; and
47
48 WHEREAS, Malcolm Hester is not being coerced, forced, or inappropriately encouraged by
49 Orange County or the Orange County Sheriff's Office to adopt this canine; and
50
5
1 WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statutes §§ 153A-176, 160A-265, 160A-266 authorize the
2 County to dispose of any personal property belonging to it according to the procedures
3 described in Chapter 160A, Article 12.
4
5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
6 1. Malcolm Hester shall assume full care and responsibility of the canine, including but not
7 limited to:
8 a. Providing adequate food, water, and shelter to the canine for the duration of its life;
9 b. Providing the canine with adequate health care, including but not limited to
10 vaccinations, medication, and all other medical necessities as needed or as
11 required by Orange County's animal control requirements; and
12 2. Malcolm Hester shall assume all liability that may result from the canine's actions, including
13 but not limited to those actions and behaviors learned as a result of the canine's special
14 training provided by the Orange County Sheriff's Office; and
15 3. Malcolm Hester shall not purposefully, negligently, or knowingly use the canine's special
16 skill set developed as a result of its career as a police canine either for profit, personal
17 gain, or in any capacity, whether this capacity would put others in danger or not; and
18 4. Malcolm Hester shall release Orange County and the Orange County Sheriff's Office from
19 liability from any sickness or health deficiencies that resulted from the canine's work with
20 the Orange County Sheriff's Office; and
21 5. Malcolm Hester shall not loan, lend, give away, or rid himself of the canine in any manner
22 which would result in the canine being in the care of another person, business, or entity;
23 and
24 6. Malcolm Hester shall be solely responsible for the actions of the canine while either in his
25 personal care or otherwise; and
26 7. Any personal property equipment assigned specifically to Lacey (collar, leashes) and any
27 shelter previously constructed on Malcolm Hester's property becomes the property of
28 Malcolm Hester. This does not include specialized police equipment (protective
29 equipment, special police issued equipment).
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich or
32 the Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a resolution retiring canine Lacey and
33 transferring her to former K9 Handler Malcolm Hester.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 Added Item:
38
39 b. Resolution Opposing NCDOT Incursion into Oosting Natural Area
40 The Board considered a Resolution Opposing North Carolina Department of
41 Transportation (NCDOT) Incursion into the Oosting Natural Area.
42
43 BACKGROUND:
44 The North Carolina Department of Transportation is in the process of developing plans to
45 expand 1-40, between the 1-85 / 1-40 split in western Orange County to 15-501 near the Durham
46 County line, from 4-lanes to 6-lanes. Part of the expansion project currently calls for
47 redesigning and rerouting traffic patterns around the NC Hwy 86 / MILK Blvd and 1-40
48 interchange.
49
6
1 Portions of the plan would involve road construction within the Oosting Natural Area and also
2 through the Northwoods residential community. The resolution opposes NCDOT incursion into
3 the Oosting Natural Area, which is part of the "Rural Buffer" and defers comment on
4 Northwoods until more information is presented.
5
6 Commissioner Jacobs said he and Commissioner Marcoplos were at the elected
7 officials DOT meeting, and they saw a map that mentioned Duke University, without any further
8 differentiation. He said the consultants discussed the environmental impacts, but failed to
9 mention the significance of the Oosting natural area. He said as a result, he is proposing the
10 following resolution, which he read:
11
12
13 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
14 RESOLUTION OPPOSING
15 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
16 INCURSION INTO THE OOSTING NATURAL AREA
17
18 WHEREAS, Orange County has a longstanding commitment to environmental protection; and
19
20 WHEREAS, for more than 30 years Orange County, in partnership with Chapel Hill and
21 Carrboro, has been committed to development according to a joint land-use plan that protects
22 significant natural areas in the central part of the county, including large sections of Duke
23 Forest in area designated as the "Rural Buffer"; and
24
25 WHEREAS, the Henry J. Oosting Natural Area, a segment of Duke Forest adjacent to Whitfield
26 Road at the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 40 intersection with NC 86/Martin Luther King
27 Boulevard, is within the area recognized by local governments for protection; and
28
29 WHEREAS, the Oosting Natural Area is a Registered Natural Heritage Area, placed in 2004 in
30 the protection program stipulated by the North Carolina Nature Preserves Act, providing crucial
31 connectivity of natural habitats in an increasingly urban and suburban setting across Orange
32 and Durham counties; and
33
34 WHEREAS, the Oosting Natural Area was recognized in 1979 by the North Carolina
35 Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) own Planning and Research Branch for "protective
36 measures" during the design and construction of 1-40; and
37
38 WHEREAS, the Oosting Natural Area, managed by Duke University for "long range ecological
39 research and related activity" since 1959, currently is host to extensive research activities; and
40
41 WHEREAS, any environmental assessment conducted by or on behalf of NCDOT that fails to
42 take into account the rare value of the Oosting Natural Area is insufficient and misleading;
43
44 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
45 calls upon NCDOT to avoid any additional road or construction incursion into the Henry J.
46 Oosting Natural Area in association with redesigning this interchange or widening 1-40 now or in
47 the future.
48
49 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
50 requests that NCDOT carefully consider alternatives to disrupting not only this key segment of
7
1 Duke Forest but the homes potentially impacted within the Northwoods community through
2 options presented on November 5, 2018.
3
4 This the 13th day of November 2018.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
7 Board to approve the resolution.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 5. Public Hearings
12 NONE
13
14 6. Regular Agenda
15
16 a. Interlocal Agreement for the Provision of Solid Waste and Recycling Programs
17 and Services
18 The Board considered approving an Interlocal Agreement with the Towns of Chapel Hill,
19 Carrboro and Hillsborough for the provision of solid waste and recycling programs and services
20 and disposition of solid waste and recyclables within Orange County and authorizing the Chair
21 to sign.
22
23 Robert Williams, Solid Waste Director presented this item:
24 BACKGROUND:
25 At the June 3, 2014 BOCC meeting, the Board created the Solid Waste Advisory Group
26 (SWAG), a multijurisdictional task force charged with articulating, investigating, and proposing
27 collaborative solutions for solid waste issues confronting Orange County; the towns of Carrboro,
28 Chapel Hill and Hillsborough; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and UNC
29 Healthcare.
30
31 The charge to the group at the outset was to define the nature, scope, and timing of the solid
32 waste issues to be considered, including proposing an interlocal agreement on solid waste.
33 At the October 29, 2018 SWAG meeting, the SWAG members unanimously supported the
34 proposed draft interlocal agreement and recommended the BOCC and each of the Town
35 Boards approve the Agreement. The governing boards for the towns of Hillsborough and
36 Carrboro are considering the Agreement at their respective November 13, 2018 meetings. The
37 Town of Chapel Hill is expected to consider the agreement before the end of the calendar year.
38 An executive summary describing the Agreement is attached, along with the full agreement.
39
40 Robert Williams made the following PowerPoint presentation:
41
42 Interlocal Agreement Oranqe County Town of Chapel Hill Town of Carrboro Town of
43 Hillsborough
44
45 PURPOSE:
46 • Foster cooperation and collaboration between the County and the Towns regarding
47 matters related to solid waste management.
48 • Flexible framework in which the Parties can make decisions for their mutual benefit to
49 meet the evolving needs of the community while continuing to model environmental
50 excellence and leadership.
8
1
2 BACKGROUND
3 • Developed collaboratively by staff from all jurisdictions
4 • Reviewed by Managers from all jurisdictions
5 • Reviewed by legal representative from each jurisdiction
6 • Unanimously approved by The Solid Waste Advisory Group ("SWAG")
7
8 AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES
9 • Recognizes UNC-Chapel Hill and UNC-Healthcare as important stakeholders but are
10 not parties to the Agreement
11 • UNC- Chapel Hill and UNC-Healthcare continued participation on SWAG and as non-
12 voting members regarding the Solid Waste Programs Fee
13
14 TERMS AND TERMINATION
15 • Agreement continues until Terminated by the parties jointly; but
16 • Individual party may withdraw with sufficient notice and, in recognition of the economic
17 effect on the other parties, payment of a withdrawal fee
18
19 NOTED CHANGES:
20 MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED ("MOC")
21 Establishes the MOC made up of the County Manager and a Manager from each Town
22 • UNC and UNC-Health are invited to appoint a non-voting member
23 • Acts as a forum to discuss issues related to
24 ➢ Recycling, Solid Waste Management, Facilities and Services
25 ➢ Rate structure
26 ➢ Submits information to SWAG for final approval and recommendation
27
28 ILA Process Flow Chart
29
30 C&D AND MSW LANDFILLS
31 • County maintains financial, regulatory and environmental responsibility for the
32 Construction and Demolition ("C&D") and Municipal Solid Waste ("MSW") Landfills
33 • Towns and County will direct C&D Waste from projects with local government funding,
34 including School construction and renovation projects, to the C&D Landfill
35
36 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ("MSW") COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
37 • The Towns and County each maintain authority and responsibility for MSW collected
38 and transferred within their respective jurisdictions.
39 • If any of the jurisdictions plan and develop alternative solid waste disposal facility
40 options the Agreement may be amended as necessary to clarify access, ownership and
41 operation.
42 • County will manage storm debris at the C&D Landfill and other identified locations
43 throughout the County. Towns remain responsible for collection and monitoring of their
44 storm debris
45
46 RECYCLING
47 • County to continue current recycling programs
48 • Elimination or Substantial changes must first be discussed by the MOC and then
49 presented to SWAG
9
1 • Towns will notify MOC of any initiative that may impact the County Programs and
2 Services; recognizes that initiatives within one jurisdiction have potential to impact all
3 jurisdictions and funding
4
5 Overview of RRMO and Enforcement
6 • Each Town has authorized enforcement of the Regulated Recyclable Material
7 Ordinance ("RRMO") within their jurisdiction
8 • Towns are required to continue to monitor, or have their collection contractors monitor,
9 waste for banned materials
10 • Agreement authorizes the County to collect and administer the SWP fee in the
11 incorporated and unincorporated area of the County
12
13 County will notify Towns of projected SWP fee changes by February 20th of each year
14 Failure by a Town to approve a fee increase necessary to meet County contractual obligations
15 may be treated as a withdrawal by that Town resulting in the Town being responsible for the
16 termination fee.
17
18 Overview of Solid Waste Programs Fee
19 County will also establish tipping fee for C&D Landfill, Notice will be given to Towns by
20 February 20th of each year as to projected tipping fee. Fee will be uniform for all Towns
21
22 Questions
23
24 Commissioner Price asked if Mebane has been considered, especially given its ongoing
25 growth and the impact of these additional residential areas in the Orange County portion of
26 Mebane.
27 Robert Williams said he would have to get that information.
28 Commissioner Rich asked if the termination rules could be reviewed.
29 Robert Williams said if a town terminates in November— 12-month termination notice—
30 that town will continue to receive services from the County, and the residents will continue to
31 pay a solid waste programs fee. He said at the end of the 12 months, the town will no longer
32 receive services from the County, but the town will pay a 12-month fee that is based on the
33 number of units that are serviced in that jurisdiction.
34 Commissioner Rich clarified that a one-year termination is required.
35 Robert Williams said yes, the municipality must give the County 12 months notice.
36 Chair Dorosin clarified that the municipality would pay for a year, post notification, and
37 still receive services; followed by another year of payments without any services rendered.
38 Robert Williams said yes.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said he believes that Mebane sends all of its solid waste to the
40 landfill in Alamance County.
41 Commissioner Jacobs gave a historical analysis of solid waste and landfills, noting how
42 the Towns and County have interacted over the years. He said the County took on the solid
43 waste operations in the early 2000s, and established some advisory boards and ethical
44 practices pertaining to solid waste. He said the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) was
45 created in 2014, and is made up of mostly elected officials, giving legitimacy and bit more
46 power behind the issues of solid waste. He said the University of North Carolina is also a part
47 of these discussions. He said this group has made significant progress since its inception, and
48 this agreement is quite an accomplishment.
49 Chair Dorosin said there is a provision about disposal facilities, and asked if there is any
50 update of any towns developing alternative disposal sites such as transfer stations.
10
1 Robert Williams said staff has talked with all the municipalities about alternative options,
2 and the master plan will address this further as a joint process. He said ideas are still in the
3 hopper.
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
6 Board to approve the Agreement and authorize the Chair to sign.
7
8 Commissioner Rich asked if Bonnie Hammersley could provide an outline for the
9 process if this is approved.
10 Bonnie Hammersley said two municipalities are considering this tonight (Hillsborough
11 and Carrboro) and Chapel Hill is doing so soon, and if there are any changes, it would come
12 back to each group to do the process over again.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 b. Approval of Motorola Solutions Subscription Services Agreement for Digital
17 Evidence Management
18 The Board considered approving the Motorola Solutions Agreement for Digital Evidence
19 Management.
20 Jamie Sykes, Chief Deputy, reviewed the following information:
21
22 BACKGROUND:
23 At the request of the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC), Sheriff Charles
24 Blackwood met with various vendors of body-worn cameras (BWC). After vetting and testing
25 the top four BWC models of interest, the Sheriff's Office determined that services and products
26 offered by Motorola Solutions are best suited for use by Deputies. At the
27 February 6, 2018 BOCC meeting, representatives from Mobile Communications America
28 presented information to the Board on Motorola's Digital Evidence Management Solutions
29 (DEMS).
30
31 North Carolina General Statutes § 143-129 subjects purchases of"apparatus, supplies,
32 materials, or equipment requiring an estimated expenditure of public money in an amount equal
33 to or more than ninety thousand dollars ($90,000)" to competitive bidding requirements unless
34 an exception exists. Among those exceptions are purchases made through a competitive
35 bidding group purchasing program, which is a formally organized program that offers
36 competitively obtained purchasing services at discount prices to two or more public agencies.
37 (See North Carolina General Statutes § 143-129(e)(3)). The Houston-Galveston Area Council
38 awarded a contract to Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Contract ID 17724) by virtue of a public
39 competitive procurement process that is compliant with the North Carolina statutory
40 requirements. Therefore, the present Agreement is exempted from the requirements of Chapter
41 143, Article 8.
42
43 As a result of the February 2018 presentation, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren worked
44 with Sheriff Charles Blackwood and Director of Emergency Management Dinah Jeffries to
45 appropriate funds for radio improvements to cover the cost in full for the DEMS purchase. At
46 this time, the necessary purchase orders have been issued and, pending Board approval of the
47 Agreement, Motorola Solutions will begin implementing the Digital Evidence Management
48 system. The Agreement has been reviewed by the Legal Advisor to the Sheriff as well as the
49 County Attorney's Office.
50
11
1 Jamie Sykes covered the history to this point. He said the total cost was $281,058,
2 which was less than expected. He said this cost covers the hardware, software, accessories,
3 maintenance, and digital evidence storage for 5 years; and prior to the conclusion of the 5-year
4 term, replacement devices will be issued at no additional cost.
5 Jamie Sykes said during the first phase they will roll out 75 units, which will cover the
6 entire patrol division and all the detention staff immediately.
7 Chair Dorosin said asked if the timetable for implementation could be reviewed, if the
8 BOCC were to approve this tonight.
9 Sheriff Blackwood said he was told the cameras are on the shelf, and available as soon
10 as practical and possible.
11 Sheriff Blackwood said they should be operational within 90 days.
12 John Roberts said the corporation's representatives were open-minded to his suggested
13 changes.
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
16 Board to approve the Motorola Solutions Subscription Services Agreement for Digital Evidence
17 Management, subject to final review by the County Attorney.
18
19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20
21 c. Triangle Water Supply Partnership Memorandum of Agreement
22 The Board considered entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Triangle
23 local government jurisdictions and their water supply authorities to create a successor to the
24 Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP), to be called the Triangle Water Supply Partnership (TWSP), a
25 regional water supply planning organization and authorize the Manager to sign.
26
27 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, presented this item:
28 BACKGROUND:
29 This item was previously considered by the Board at the October 16, 2018 regular meeting, at
30 which time the questions below were posed. Staff has provided responses below:
31
32 1. Why the name change from the Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) to the Triangle Water
33 Supply Partnership (TWSP)? Response: The name change reflects the regional
34 coalition with the addition of Johnston County and Harnett County who, while completely
35 integrated in the Triangle planning region, draw water supplies from outside the Jordan
36 Lake watershed.
37
38 2. How is this new TWSP agreement different from the JLP agreement? Answer: The
39 primary difference is that the financial structure of the TWSP is more of a subscription
40 model; whereas, the JLP was more of a project-based model. This will smooth out the
41 cost shares (dues) and, with five-year planning of projects, improve the predictability of
42 budget allocations. The TWSP MOA also better facilitates project implementation by
43 fractions of the membership; for instance, two cities who wish to interconnect.
44
45 3. When is this ratification expected? Response: All other parties have signed and are
46 awaiting Orange County, although technically speaking the TWSP now exists, as at
47 least two of the members have signed the MOA.
48
49 4. Why aren't Chapel Hill and Carrboro part of this agreement? Response: Orange Water
12
1 & Sewer Authority (OWASA) is the purveyor of water for Chapel Hill and Carrboro and
2 coordinates with them and the County indirectly.
3
4 5. Do Johnston County and Harnett County currently have a Jordan Lake allocation?
5 Response: No.
6
7 6. With the addition of Johnston County and Harnett County to the TWSP, might they be
8 awarded a Jordan Lake allocation in the future, which might dilute Orange County's
9 allocation? Responses:
10 a) The Jordan Lake allocations are like checking accounts; Orange County's
11 allocation cannot be affected by any other Jordan Lake allocation.
12 b) The allocation request process has expired with the latest round.
13 c) Due to a current "regional-system" interconnection to Harnett County and
14 Johnston County, it is possible both could receive treated water originating from
15 Jordan Lake, but only through others with an allocation. As to whether the North
16 Carolina Division of Water Resources would recommend and the Environmental
17 Management Commission would approve such an "allocation" for permanent
18 water supply, any response provided would be only supposition. Both Johnston
19 and Harnett counties draw water supplies from outside the Jordan Lake
20 watershed. The current situation is that Harnett County has excess capacity and
21 its interconnection is primarily being counted on for supply to Johnston County
22 and Holly Springs. It is staff's opinion that it is unlikely that Johnston and Harnett
23 counties would need a permanent allocation from Jordan Lake and that, no
24 matter what the actual outcome of any such future allocation decision might be, it
25 is better for Orange County to be a TWSP partner than not.
26
27 7. Is there any mechanism for the members of the TWSP to set higher standards for water
28 conservation across all the membership? Yes. This has, in fact, been one of the
29 concerns of the members and such collaborative efforts are ongoing.
30
31 Additional comments, as listed below, were received via e-mail after the October 16, 2018
32 BOCC meeting:
33
34 8. We should ensure that no party to the agreement loses their autonomy and cannot have
35 their water "seized" by the larger organization. Response: There is nothing in the
36 Triangle Water Supply Partnership (TWSP) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that
37 would subject any organization to loss of its water supply or allocation from Jordan
38 Lake.
39
40 9. What, if any, ancillary agreements with other regional water organizations might be
41 encoded in the agreement? Response: The TWSP MOA contains provisions that
42 facilitate collaboration between the members. It is a democratic agreement and TWSP
43 projects are formulated through that process.
44
45 10. What are the implications of the Jordan Lake allocations in regard to those jurisdictions
46 and/or utilities that were not part of the Jordan Lake Partnership? Response: Please see
47 the response to question 6 above.
48
49 11. Would it be worthwhile to get a brief report from OWASA that references these issues
50 and any concerns they might have. Response: Ruth Rouse, OWASA's Planning and
13
1 Development Manager, has been present at all Jordan Lake Partnership meetings as
2 the TWSP MOA has been in formulation. Ms. Rouse is thoroughly familiar with and in
3 support of the agreement and made the TWSP MOA approval recommendation to the
4 OWASA Board. Ms. Rouse has offered her full support to Orange County staff in
5 facilitating Orange County becoming a member of the TWSP and is a proponent of
6 Orange County joining.
7
8 The agreement which created the Jordan Lake Partnership expires next year. The Triangle
9 Water Supply Partnership (TWSP) is proposed as the successor to that partnership, to continue
10 providing a forum for coordination and collaboration for sustainable water supplies for the
1 1 region and provide an opportunity for other regional utilities to join. The Parties (Participants)
12 have negotiated a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) defining the terms of this regional
13 effort (Attachment 1), which is presented for the Board's consideration.
14
15 Jordan Lake is the water supply for Cary, Morrisville, Research Triangle Park (RTP) south,
16 Apex and Chatham County. Communities in Wake, Durham, Orange and Chatham counties
17 also have Jordan Lake allocations for future water supplies. Orange County was recently
18 approved for a 1.5% allocation of the lake's water supply by the North Carolina Department of
19 Environmental Quality.
20
21 The Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) is one of the best examples of regional cooperation to meet
22 Orange County's commitment to ensure economic self-sufficiency and high-quality, safe,
23 affordable, and reliable water services to meet the needs of residents and support continued
24 growth. Orange County has been a JLP partner since 2009. The JLP has served as a forum for
25 coordination and support during the state's most-recent round of Jordan Lake water supply
26 allocations.
27
28 Over the past nine years, the JLP has helped the County and its partners obtain new Jordan
29 Lake water supply allocations from the State to meet anticipated future needs, created a 50-
30 year regional water supply plan, developed a comprehensive hydraulic model of the region's
31 water systems and interconnections, and revised Jordan Lake drought contingency planning.
32 Joining Orange County in the JLP were Apex, Cary, Chatham County, Durham, Hillsborough,
33 Holly Springs, Morrisville, Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), Pittsboro, Raleigh,
34 Sanford and Wake County. The JLP was awarded the 2014 Outstanding Planning Award by the
35 American Planning Association's North Carolina chapter and the 2015 Major Metro
36 Achievement Award by the National Association of Regional Councils, as a model for effective
37 collaboration between local governments.
38
39 The agreement that created the Jordan Lake Partnership expires in 2019. Because the JLP has
40 been a uniquely effective forum for regional water supply planning and water system
41 coordination, the JLP members desire to continue the working relationship. Wake County,
42 which transferred its Jordan Lake water supply allocation for RTP south to Cary in 2017, will not
43 continue in the JLP/TWSP.
44
45 The Participants propose to continue as a forum for regional coordination and collaboration for
46 sustainable water supplies under the name Triangle Water Supply Partnership (TWSP).
47 Proposed participants are shown in Attachment 2. The name change reflects the regional
48 coalition with the addition of Johnston County and Harnett County who, while completely
49 integrated in the Triangle planning region, draw their water supplies from outside the Jordan
14
1 Lake watershed. Partners have negotiated a new Memorandum of Agreement defining the
2 terms of this regional effort, which is presented for the BOCC's consideration.
3
4 All parties, with the exception of Orange County, have already approved the MOA, including two
5 Orange County partners, Hillsborough and OWASA.
6
7 Commissioner Marcoplos said he appreciated this information being shared tonight, and
8 he is satisfied that this is a transparent issue. He said he noticed that Wake County transferred
9 its Jordan Lake allocation to Cary, and did not become part of this agreement, despite other
10 municipalities in Wake County becoming part of the agreement. He said Hillsborough,
11 Carrboro, and Chapel Hill are party to the agreement through OWASA, and asked if there is
12 anything for Orange County to get out of, or contribute to, the agreement. He said it looks like
13 Wake County is neither getting in the way of, nor contributing to, all the municipalities being
14 involved.
15 Craig Benedict said there is a complex background as to where water supplies come
16 from beyond Jordan Lake. He said Wake County has opted to use some of its other water
17 supplies that are available. He said part of the year and a half period that occurred, prior to the
18 allocation process, was trying to sort out the viability of existing water resources and quantities
19 from other lakes in the area, and how Wake County and Raleigh fit into the program. He said
20 all the partners in the program thought it best for Wake County to give its allocation directly to
21 the municipalities. He said he understands that this is a bigger issue than just Jordan Lake,
22 and Orange County is the only entity without a water treatment facility. He said he thinks the
23 County was forward looking by being involved, and it preserves its allocation for the future for
24 specific growth areas that are anticipated.
25 Commissioner Marcoplos said he now has a greater understanding, and the County has
26 a reserved chip that it can play at a later time, if necessary.
27 Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County has been paying for its allocation since he
28 has been on the Board. He said Hillsborough stopped paying but when it needed water, its
29 allocation was granted back. He said the County has continued to pay for its allocation, even
30 through periods of recession, in order to have it as a bargaining chip.
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
33 for the Board to:
34
35 1. Approve and authorize the Manager to sign the attached TWSP MOA, or a substantially
36 similar version, and to provide such notices and take such actions as the MOA
37 contemplates;
38 2. Authorize the County Manager to designate specific County Staff as a Representative
39 and Alternate Representatives to the TWSP, as deemed necessary, consistent with
40 section 4 of the MOA; and
41 3. Authorize the payment of cost shares, as determined by the TWSP and as approved by
42 the BOCC in the Orange County annual budget.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 d. Orange County's Recommendations Regarding Items Proposed for Inclusion in
47 the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' (NCACC) 2019-2020
48 Federal Legislative Agenda
15
1 The Board discussed proposed issues and considered approving a resolution regarding
2 items proposed for inclusion in the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners'
3 (NCACC) 2019-2020 Federal Legislative Agenda and authorize the Chair to sign.
4
5 Greg Wilder, Manager's office, presented this item.
6 Chair Dorosin asked the BOCC to consider items that did not make the list last year.
7 Commissioner Price said this is going to the National Association of Counties (NACo),
8 and she serves on some steering committees. She said several of these issues are going to go
9 forward already: workforce development, housing and community economic development, and
10 ending homelessness for Veterans.
11 Commissioner Price said broadband is throughout NACo, especially in rural counties,
12 and is going to go forward. She said the Stepping Up initiative will probably also go forward as
13 it was part of the previous President's initiative.
14 Commissioner Rich said there is not consensus on the broadband issue on the NACo
15 technology steering committee because of the rural/urban divide. She is hopeful that this
16 discussion will come around to allow for more progress.
17 Commissioner Rich agreed with Chair Dorosin to put forth prohibiting discrimination on
18 the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. She said she also wanted to see Medicaid
19 for all put forward, and does not know why it is not already on the list.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a good range of federal programs already, but he
21 would suggest adding the Parkland Preservation Trust Fund, which does not have a dedicated
22 funding source.
23 David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
24 Director, said this is called the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
25 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there are success stories from previously promoted
26 legislation, and how the County has been most effective in the past.
27 Chair Dorosin said he sees Orange County's role as staking out the left pole from NACo
28 and North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC), by promoting those issues
29 that other counties may not promote.
30 Commissioner Marcoplos said he agreed with this, and would consider putting forth just
31 3 items to create greater focus.
32 Commissioner Rich said Chair Dorosin expressed this same sentiment in agenda
33 review, and suggested promoting 5 items.
34 Commissioner Price said this list shows how many counties are in favor of a particular
35 item. She said she would also add Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and social
36 services block grants to the list.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said this list is more like when the Board passes resolutions: it
38 makes a statement for the residents and values of Orange County.
39 Chair Dorosin said to try and create a list of 5 issues.
40 Commissioner Marcoplos suggested:
41 • National marshal plan to mitigate climate change
42 • legalize marijuana (Commissioner Rich added to rescind arrest for minor criminal
43 acts associated with marijuana)
44 Commissioner Price said something connected with immigration, but she is not sure
45 how to frame it.
46 Chair Dorosin summarized the issues he is hearing as most important:
47 • Dedicated funding for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
48 • Prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity
49 • Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15/hour
50 • Medicaid for all
16
1 • National marshal plan to mitigate climate change
2 • Legalize marijuana/decriminalize penalties
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich, in
5 regards to the 6 items presented, for the Board to:
6 approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution; and direct the Clerk to the
7 Board to forward the approved resolution and any other related materials to
8 NCACC by the November 16, 2018 deadline.
9
10 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
11
12 Greg Wilder said staff will pull this together and work with the Clerk to get the Chair's
13 signature and forward these 6 recommendations to NCACC by Friday.
14 7. Reports
15 NONE
16
17 8. Consent Agenda
18 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
19 8-e by Commissioner Rich
20 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
23 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
28
29 8 E. Nonprofit Capital Funding Loan Agreement
30 The Board considered voting to approve the Nonprofit Capital Loan Agreement
31 Template for providing loans to Nonprofits for capital projects.
32
33 Commissioner Rich said the timeframe indicates that Capital Loan requests are due on
34 November 30, 2018. She asked if any loans will be reviewed this year.
35 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, said the timeframe is parallel with the outside
36 agencies process, and existing outside agencies have been given this information.
37 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a deadline for outside agency funding applications.
38 Gary Donaldson said the applications are due by the end of the year, with the award
39 process beginning in January.
40 Commissioner Rich said the loan requests are due to the finance office by November
41 30, and asked if these are due prior to the outside agency funding applications.
42 Gary Donaldson said the organizations should make a capital loan request on letterhead
43 to the County Manager's office by November 30th
44 Commissioner Rich asked if all entities are aware of this timeline.
45 Gary Donaldson said staff has been advertising it.
46 Commissioner Rich said Club Nova was unaware of this timeline, and she wonders if all
47 organizations are really clear on the process.
48 Gary Donaldson said staff will send an additional follow up email to all the non-profits.
49
17
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
2 approve the Nonprofit Capital Loan Agreement Template for providing loans to Nonprofits for
3 capital projects.
4
5 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner McKee)
6
7 a. Minutes
8 The Board approved the minutes from November 1, 2018 as submitted by the Clerk to the
9 Board.
10 b. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2019
11 The Board changed the Board of Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for 2019 to add
12 a location to the January 25, 2019 retreat.
13 c. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget Amendment#3
14 The Board approved budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2018-
15 19 for the Sheriff's office; Department of Social Services; Emergency Services; and
16 Planning and Inspections.
17 d. Acceptance of Electric Motorcycle Grant and Approval of Budget Amendment#3-A
18 The Board accepted $12,668 in reimbursement funds from the North Carolina Clean Energy
19 Technology Center to purchase an electric motorcycle; approve Budget Amendment#3-A;
20 and authorize the County Manager to sign.
21 e. Nonprofit Capital Funding Loan Agreement
22 The Board approved the Nonprofit Capital Loan Agreement Template for providing loans to
23 Nonprofits for capital projects.
24
25 9. County Manager's Report
26 Bonnie Hammersley said the rolling calendar indicated that the Environmental
27 Agricultural Center (EAC) and detention center were supposed to be discussed at last week's
28 work session, but these items were pulled as staff is anticipating some budget concerns with
29 this project due to construction costs. She said staff is working with the architect and
30 construction manager, and will bring this item back to the Board when there are additional
31 options worked out.
32
33 10. County Attorney's Report
34 John Roberts said a lawsuit was filed today challenging the constitutionality of the
35 partisan gerrymandering, which is similar to the case filed in Pennsylvania that the
36 Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld, and found the gerrymandering to be unconstitutional. He
37 said it is based on state constitution claims, and is thus unlikely that any federal court would
38 intervene, and it should be decided at the State level.
39 Chair Dorosin asked if there is also a case in federal court that has been successful.
40 John Roberts said there is a federal case that will ultimately get to the US Supreme
41 Court, but it only challenges the United States Congressional seats of North Carolina. He
42 thinks this case will either be sent back down, or ruled against the plaintiffs, at which point a NC
43 constitutional challenge could be filed in a similar manner to what was filed today.
44
45 11. *Appointments
46
47 a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee—Appointments
48 The Board considered making appointments to the Adult Care Home Community
49 Advisory Committee.
50
18
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
2 appoint the following to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee:
3
4 • Position 3 Alison Brown - At-Large One Year position — one-year training - Preliminary
5 11/13/2019
6 • Position 6 Shade Little - At-Large One Year position —one-year-training - Preliminary
7 11/13/2019
8
9 Chair Dorosin noted there are still 3 other vacancies on this board.
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 b. Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointment
14 The Board considered making an appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
17 appoint the following to the Agricultural Preservation Board:
18
19 Position 12 - Kim Woods At-Large position - First Full Term ending 06/30/2021
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23 c. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board —Appointment
24 The Board considered making an appointment to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to
27 nominate Marcus Wilhelm to this position
28
29 Commissioner Rich said their boards and commissions need new people, and to not
30 keep recycling the same people. She said Mr. Wilhelm is a business owner, and has
31 knowledge that would make him a great addition to this board.
32
33 VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Marcoplos); Nays, 5 (Chair Dorosin,
34 Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Price, and Commissioner
35 Jacobs).
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
38 appoint
39 Position - 5 Elizabeth Carter At-Large position - Partial Term ending 06/30/2019
40
41 Commissioner Price said the board had vetted Ms. Carter, and she has been an active
42 community member.
43 Commissioner Burroughs said the voters have vetted Ms. Carter many times, and that
44 offers added confidence.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said Ms. Carter would also fill the long tradition of having a school
46 board member on this board.
47
48 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Burroughs,
49 Commissioner Price, and Commissioner Jacobs); Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Rich and
50 Commissioner Marcoplos)
19
1
2 d. Hillsborough Planning Board —Appointment
3 The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Planning Board.
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
6 appoint the following to the Hillsborough Planning Board:
7
8 • Position 2 Lisa Frazier Hillsborough ETJ / County position - Second Full Term ending
9 10/31/2021
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 12. Information Items
14
15 • November 1, 2018 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
16 • Completion of the Triangle Regional Resilience Assessment
17 • FY2018-19 First Quarter Financial Report
18
19 13. Closed Session
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to go
22 into closed session at 8:59 p.m. for the purposes of:
23
24 "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
25 the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
26 143-318.11(a)(5).
27
28 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
29 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board."
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 RECONVENING INTO REGULAR SESSION
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
36 reconvene into regular session at 9:17 p.m.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 14. Adjournment
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
43 go adjourn the meeting at 9:17 p.m.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 Mark Dorosin, Chair
48
49 Donna Baker
50 Clerk to the Board
�f